Transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fracture
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Surgical approaches to the condylar fracture include intraoral, preauricular, submandibular, and retromandibular approaches. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. When a patient needs esthetic results and an intraoral approach is not feasible, the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach is considered. This approach permits direct exposure and allow the surgeon to fixatethe fractured unit tangentially. Tangential fix-tion is critical to osteosynthesis. Disadvantages of the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach include damage to the facial nerve and a longer operation time. However, after the initial learning curve, facial nerve damage can be avoided and operation time may decrease. We report three cases of subcondylar fractures that were treated with a transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach. Among these, two cases had trivial complications that were easily overcome. Instead of dissecting through the parotid gland parenchyma, the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach uses transmas-seteric dissection and reduces facial nerve damage more than the retromandibular transparotid approach. The esthetic result is superior to that of other approaches.
Abstract
Surgical approaches to the condylar fracture include intraoral, preauricular, submandibular, and retromandibular approaches. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. When a patient needs esthetic results and an intraoral approach is not feasible, the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach is considered. This approach permits direct exposure and allow the surgeon to fixatethe fractured unit tangentially. Tangential fix-tion is critical to osteosynthesis. Disadvantages of the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach include damage to the facial nerve and a longer operation time. However, after the initial learning curve, facial nerve damage can be avoided and operation time may decrease. We report three cases of subcondylar fractures that were treated with a transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach. Among these, two cases had trivial complications that were easily overcome. Instead of dissecting through the parotid gland parenchyma, the transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach uses transmas-seteric dissection and reduces facial nerve damage more than the retromandibular transparotid approach. The esthetic result is superior to that of other approaches.
참고문헌 (9)
- Divaris M, "Face expressive lifting (FEL):an original surgical concept combined with bipolar radiofrequency", Eur J Plast Surg, 37, pp.69~76 (2014)
- Lindahl L., "Condylar fractures of the mandible. I. Classification and relation to age, occlusion, and concomitant injuries of teeth and teeth-supporting structures, and fractures of the mandibular body", Int J Oral Surg, 6, pp.12~21 (1977)
- Lee C, "Endoscopic subcondylar fracture repair: functional, aesthetic, and radiographic outcomes", Plast Reconstr Surg, 102, pp.1434~1443 (1998)
- Loukota RA, "Endoscopically assisted reduction and fixation of condylar neck", base fractures--The learning curve, 2006, pp.44, 480~481
- Salgarelli AC, "How to improve retromandibular transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures: our clinical experience", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 42, pp.464~469 (2013)
- Manisali M, "Retromandibular approach to the mandibular condyle: a clinical and cadaveric study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 32, pp.253~256 (2003)
- Widmark G, "Open reduction of subcondylar fractures. A study of functional rehabilitation", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 25, pp.107~111 (1996)
- Tang W, "Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 67, pp.552~558 (2009)
- Ellis E 3rd, "Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 58, pp.950~958 (2000)