Endoscopic surgery versus open reduction treatment of mandibular condyle fractures: A meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery Vol. 49; no. 8; pp. 749 - 757
• Main Authors: Cavalcanti, Samantha Cristine Santos Xisto Braga, Taufer, Bianca, Rodrigues, Alex de Freitas, Luz, João Gualberto de Cerqueira
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Scotland Elsevier Ltd 01-08-2021
• Subjects: Dentistry; Endoscopy; Fracture fixation; Mandibular condyle; Mandibular fractures; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Fracture fixation; Systematic review; Mandibular condyle; Endoscopy; Mandibular fractures; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 1010-5182; 1878-4119
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.02.019

The aim of the study was to compare open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) in adults in terms of reducing both needing of reoperation and/or facial nerve injury.
An electronic search was undertaken (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library). The inclusion criteria were full text, published from their inception to June 2020, clinical trials, randomized or not, and retrospective studies, that compared ORIF and EORIF. The estimates of an intervention were expressed as the risk ratio (RR).
From the 1338 articles found, 5 publications were included. There was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and EORIF regarding needing of reoperation (RR = 2.46, p = 0.42) or facial nerve injury (RR = 0.45, p = 0.14).
Meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference between open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) regarding facial nerve injury risk or need for reoperation.