Does Surgical Specialty Impact Mandibular Fracture Outcomes?
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
18
9
2020
medline:
18
11
2021
entrez:
17
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Maxillofacial trauma is treated by two medical specialties, plastic surgery (PRS) and otolaryngology (ENT). Differences in training exposure and practice patterns exist between specialties, but their respective outcomes have never been compared. Mandible fracture data were reviewed from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2016. Demographics variables, repair types, and adverse outcomes were compared between PRS and ENT. From 2005 to 2016, one thousand two hundred eighty-two cases were identified with 756 cases managed by ENT and 526 cases managed by PRS. Mean patient age was 34.6 years for both specialties (P = 0.95). Patient demographics between both cohorts were not statistically different except for higher rates of hypertension among ENT patients (10.2% for ENT versus 6.7% for PRS, P = 0.027) and higher rates of smoking history among PRS patients (46.8% versus 52.3%, P = 0.055). Mean operative time (131.3 versus 124.0 min, P = 0.090) had a trend toward being longer for ENT and mean length of stay (1.3 versus 2.0, P = 0.002) was significantly longer for PRS. Despite a greater proportion of high ASA class patients in the ENT group (P = 0.012) and patients with dirty/infected wounds in the PRS group (P = 0.013), there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission rates, 30-day reoperation rates, or wound infection rates. No significant differences in 30-day readmission rates, reoperation rates, or wound infection rates for mandible fracture management exist between specialties. Despite differences in training between PRS and ENT, both specialties have comparable perioperative outcomes for mandible fracture management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32941216
pii: 00001665-202105000-00013
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007046
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
855-858Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Ellis E 3rd, Miles BA. Fractures of the mandible: a technical perspective. Plastic and reconstructive Surg 2007; 120: (7 suppl 2): 76S–89S.
Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61:1324–1332.
Ferretti C, Bryant R, Becker P, et al. Temporomandibular joint morphology following post-traumatic ankylosis in 26 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 34:376–381.
Hackenberg B, Lee C, Caterson EJ. Management of subcondylar mandible fractures in the adult patient. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25:166–171.
Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Oikarinen K, et al. Analysis of possible factors leading to problems after nonsurgical treatment of condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994; 52:793–799.
Ebenezer V, Ramalingam B. Comparison of approaches for the rigid fixation of sub-condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2011; 10:38–44.
Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton G. Facial symmetry after closed and open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58:719–728. discussion 729-730.
Danda AK, Muthusekhar MR, Narayanan V, et al. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68:1238–1241.
Bhutia O, Kumar L, Jose A, et al. Evaluation of facial nerve following open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture through retromandibular transparotid approach. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 52:236–240.
Lutz J-C, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, et al. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat 2010; 32:963–969.
Biglioli F, Colletti G. Transmasseter approach to condylar fractures by mini-retromandibular access. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67:2418–2424.
Bouchard C, Perreault M-H. Postoperative complications associated with the retromandibular approach: a retrospective analysis of 118 subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72:370–375.
Ellis E III, McFadden D, Simon P, et al. Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58:950–958.
Bagheri SC, Dimassi M, Shahriari A, et al. Facial trauma coverage among level-1 trauma centers of the United States. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66:963–967.
Tahim A, Patel K, Bridle C, et al. The 100 most cited articles in facial trauma: a bibliometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 2240-e2241-2240-e2214.
Farber SJ, Nguyen DC, Skolnick GB, et al. Current management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a multidisciplinary survey and literature review. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016; 9:313–322.
Zavlin D, Jubbal KT, Echo A, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of surgical management and outcomes of mandibular fracture repair in adults. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2018; 11:41–48.
Chen CL, Zenga J, Patel R, et al. Complications and reoperations in mandibular angle fractures. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 20:238–243.
Devireddy SK, Kishore Kumar RV, Gali R, et al. Transoral versus extraoral approach for mandibular angle fractures: a comparative study. Indian J Plast Surg 2014; 47:354–361.
Wan K, Williamson RA, Gebauer D, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: does the transbuccal technique produce fewer complications after treatment than the transoral technique? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70:2620–2628.
Ju MH, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, et al. Effect of wound classification on risk adjustment in American College of Surgeons NSQIP. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219:371–381. e375.
Erdmann D, Price K, Reed S, et al. A financial analysis of operative facial fracture management. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121:1323–1327.
Schaefer EHt, Caterson EJ. Antibiotic selection for open reduction internal fixation of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24:85–88.
Cohen SM, Rosett BE, Shifrin DA. An analysis of independent variables affecting surgical outcomes in patients undergoing repair of maxillofacial trauma: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28:596–599.
Fraioli R, Johnson JT. Prevention and treatment of postsurgical head and neck infections. Curre Infect Dis Rep 2004; 6:172–180.
Operative Minimums Effective July 1, 2014. In: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2017.
Required Minimum Number of Key Indicator Procedures for Graduating Residents. In: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2019.
Accreditation Standards for Advanced Dental Education Programs in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. In: Commission on Dental Accreditation; 2018.
McCusker SB, Schmalbach CE. The otolaryngologist's cost in treating facial trauma:vAmerican Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Survey. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 146:366–371.
Garcia-Guerrero I, Ramirez JM, Gomez de Diego R, et al. Complications in the treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: surgical versus conservative treatment. Ann Anat 2017; 216:60–68.
Ho SY, Liao HT, Chen CH, et al. The radiographic and functional outcome of bilateral mandibular condylar head fractures: a comparison between open and closed treatment. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74: (suppl 2): S93–S98.