Comparative Evaluation of Open Reduction with Internal Fixation Against Closed Reduction Methods for Condylar Fracture Management: A Systematic Review and Meta- analysis.

Background: Mandibular fractures are frequent in facial trauma. Management of mandibular condylar fractures (MCF) remains an ongoing matter of controversy in maxillofacial injury. A number of techniques, from closed reduction (CR) to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), can be effectively used to manage these fractures. The best treatment strategy, that is, closed reduction or open reduction with internal fixation, remains controversial. Aim: The aim of this study is to systematically review the existing scientific literature to determine whether open reduction with internal fixation or closed reduction is a better treatment alternative for the patients with condylar fractures through a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases like PubMed, google scholar and Ebsco Host were searched from 2000 to December 2021 for studies reporting management of condylar fractures through open reduction with internal fixation against closed reduction and reporting the outcome in terms of mean and standard deviation (SD). Quality assessment of included case control and cohort studies was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and randomized studies were evaluated using Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB)-2 tool through its domains. The risk of bias summary graph and risk of bias summary applicability concern was plotted using RevMan software version 5.3. The standardized mean difference (SDM) was used as summary statistic measure with random effect model and p value <0.05 as statistically significant. Results: Seventeen studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only nine studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of 0.80, 0.36 and 0.42 for maximum inter incisal opening, laterotrusion and protrusion favours CR compared to ORIF for condylar fracture management. Also, most results of heterogeneity tests were poor and most of the funnel plots showed asymmetry, indicating the presence of possible publication bias. Conclusion: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that CR provides superior outcomes in terms of maximum inter incisal opening, laterotrusion and protrusion compared to ORIF in condylar fractures management. It is necessary to conduct more prospective randomized studies and properly control confounding factors to achieve effective results and gradually unify clinical guidelines.