Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38371219›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2024

Open vs Closed Management of Condylar Fracture Our Experience of 100 Cases in a Suburban Tertiary Care Hospital.

Manoj Kumar, Sathyanarayanan Ramanujam, Raghu Kumaravelu, Raja Sethupathy Cheeman, Raymond Joseph Periera, Sarah Titus

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manoj KumarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Sathyanarayanan RamanujamDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Raghu KumaraveluDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Raja Sethupathy CheemanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Raymond Joseph PerieraDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Sarah TitusDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University (Deemed to be University) Pondicherry, India.
Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective Observational Study. Objective: Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction. Methods: The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months. Results: It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up. Conclusions: From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.

Indexed as

closed reductioncondyleopen reductiontemporo-mandibular disorders

Identifiers

PMID38371219
PMCPMC10874205
OpenAlexW4311387091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.