ArticleCureus2024
Association Between the Treatment Modality of Pediatric Subcondylar Fractures and Functional Outcomes at the Six-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of treatment for subcondylar fractures in children and adolescents remains a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the treatment modality of subcondylar fractures and functional outcomes at the six-month follow-up.
methodsThis retrospective study examined a cohort of children and adolescents with unilateral or bilateral subcondylar fractures treated at a level 1 trauma center over a five-year period. Radiological assessments of ramal height shortening (RHS) and subcondylar fracture angulation (SFA) were conducted using cone beam computed tomography. A total of 28 patients met the inclusion criteria, which required participants to be 18 years of age or younger, have a follow-up period of at least six months, and present with an initial SFA of less than 45°. Subcondylar fractures were classified into three categories: Class I (RHS <2 mm and/or SFA <10°), Class II (RHS ≥2 mm and ≤15 mm and/or SFA ≥10° and ≤35°), and Class III (RHS >15 mm and/or SFA >35°). Functional outcomes, including maximal mouth opening, lateral movements, and protrusive movements, were assessed at the six-month follow-up. Reference values specific to children and adolescents were applied to distinguish between normal and limited mandibular motion. The relationship between treatment modality and functional outcomes was analyzed using logistic regression, with adjustments made for age, sex, and fracture classification. Results: Twenty-eight patients (67.9% male; mean age 14.0±4.0 years) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 53.6% (n=15) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation, while 46.4% (n=13) underwent closed reduction. The choice of treatment modality significantly influenced patient prognosis. Closed reduction was strongly associated with improved functional outcomes, specifically in the vertical range of movement (odds ratio (OR)=16.4; P=0.047), lateral range of movement (OR=18.7; P=0.044), and overall combined functional outcomes of vertical, lateral, and protrusive movements (OR=10.9; P=0.028).
conclusionThis preliminary study suggests a correlation between treatment modality and functional outcomes at the six-month follow-up. Open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fractures in children and adolescents may carry a higher risk of poor functional outcomes. The findings support closed reduction as the preferred approach for Class I-III cases with subcondylar fracture fragments angulated between 0° and 45°.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.