ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
A Comparison of Outcomes and Complications Between Closed Reduction and Open Reduction of Mandibular Condylar and Subcondylar Fractures.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare postoperative outcomes and complications between closed reduction and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of condylar and subcondylar fractures. Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective database study utilizing data from 64 healthcare organizations in the United States from January 1, 2010 to July 31, 2025. The TriNetX database was used to identify adult patients ages 18 years or older with a history of condylar or subcondylar fractures. These patients were either treated with closed reduction or ORIF. The relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes and complications were assessed within 1 year postoperatively. Results: Infection at or around the surgical site was more common with ORIF (RR: 0.64 [0.47-0.88]), while jaw pain and malocclusion were more frequent after closed reduction (RR: 1.73 [1.29-2.33]; 1.61 [1.21-2.15]). Malunion/nonunion and wound disruption rates were similar between groups (RR: 0.95 [0.61-1.48]; 1.33 [0.69-2.59]), and there were no facial nerve injuries. Patients treated with closed reduction had higher 30- and 90-day emergency department visit rates (RR: 1.90 [1.55-2.33]; 1.73 [1.44-2.09]). Conclusion: Closed reduction is associated with a higher rate of jaw pain, malocclusion, and visits to the emergency department when compared to ORIF, but associated with an increased risk of infection. There was no risk of facial nerve injury or osteomyelitis with either treatment options. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.