INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR COMPLICATIONS AFTER MANDIBULAR OSTEOSYNTHESIS. A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2523-420X/2023.3.1Keywords:
mandibular fractures, osteosynthesis, miniplates, retrospective analysis, complicationsAbstract
Purpose of the study. To conduct a retrospective analysis of the results of open repositioning and osteosynthesis in patients with traumatic fractures of the mandible, as well as to determine the frequency, structure and risk factors for postoperative complications in patients of this category. Materials and methods. The study included 344 patients with traumatic fractures of the mandible who underwent surgical treatment (osteosynthesis). The data taken into account were: gender, age of the patient, bad habits, concomitant somatic diseases, time from the moment of injury to hospitalisation and the patient's hospital stay, etiology and mechanism of injury, fracture location, type of fracture, presence of a tooth in the fracture gap, presence of a combined injury, surgical access, method of fixation (type and number of fixators), time of surgery, accuracy of fragment matching, presence and type of postoperative complications. The statistical analysis included the identification of factors associated with an increased risk of various types of complications. The Pearson's χ2 criterion was used to study differences in indicators that were qualitative or semi-quantitative in nature. To analyse the relationship between the risk of complications for patients who underwent surgery, univariate logistic regression models were built for each factor calculated using the EZR software (v.1.54). Results. Among the patients included in the study, men accounted for 87.7% (n=293) and women for 12.3 % (n=41). The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 80 years (mean age 34.7±12.1 years). Harmful habits were noted in 56.1 % (n=193) of patients. Concomitant somatic diseases were detected in 29.6 % (n=102) of cases. The predominant type of etiology was assaults ‒ 57.8 % (n=193). By localisation, fractures of the the angle (30.8 % (n=176), condyle (30.6 % (n=175), and the body (27.1 % (n=155)) prevailed. Combined trauma was present in 27.5 % (n=92) of patients. Teeth in the fracture gap were present in 153 cases of angle fractures (86.9 %), 134 cases of body fractures (86.5 %) and 52 chin fractures (100 %). Open repositioning of fragments in the studied patients was performed using intraoral access in 61.3 %. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 11.2% (n=38).The main types of complications in the postoperative period included infectious purulent-inflammatory processes ‒ 3.6 % (n=12), plate fracture ‒ 1.2 % (n=4), disocclusion/ bite disorder, plate exposure and inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia ‒ 2.1 % (n=7) each. A statistically significant risk factor for complications after mandibular osteosynthesis was the accuracy of fragment repositioning (ꭓ2=13.73, p=.00021). There were two-factor features that were statistically significantly associated with the risk of complications in the postoperative period: an increase in the duration of surgery (p=0.03, 1.13 (95 % CI 1.01-1.27)) and a decrease in the accuracy of fragment repositioning (p=0.0004, 0.32 (95 % CI 0.172-0.6)). Conclusions. Thus, our study shows that the characteristics of the fracture and the chosen method of fixation practically did not affect the incidence of complications in the postoperative period. Instead, the main factors associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative complications in patients with mandibular fractures were an increase in the time of surgery and inaccurate repositioning.
References
Boffano P., Roccia F., Zavattero E., Dediol E., Uglešić Vedran et al. European Maxillofacial Trauma (EURMAT) project: a multicentre and prospective study. Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. 2015. Vol. 43, № 1. P. 62–70. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.011
Хірургічна стоматологія та щелепно-лицева хірургія : у 2 т. Т. 1 : підручник для студентів вищих мед. навч. закл. ІІІ-ІV рівнів акредитації / В. О. Маланчук та ін. Київ: Логос, 2011. 672 с.
Principles of Internal Fixation of the Craniomaxillofacial Skeleton. Trauma and Orthognathic Surgery / eds.: P. N. Manson, J. Prein, M. Ehrenfeld. Stuttgart : Georg Thieme Verlag KG., 2012. doi:10.1055/b-0034-84677
Stacey D. H., Doyle J. F., Mount D. L., Snyder M. C., Gutowski K. A Management of mandible fractures. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2006. Vol. 117. № 3. P. 48e–60e.doi. org/10.1097/01.prs.0000209392.85221.0b
Cillo J. E. Jr, Ellis E. 3rd. Management of bilateral mandibular angle fractures with combined rigid and nonrigid fixation. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2014. Vol. 72. P. 106–111 doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.07.008.
Kozakiewicz M., Zieliński R., Konieczny B., Krasowski M., Okulski J. Open Rigid Internal Fixation of Low-Neck Condylar Fractures of the Mandible: Mechanical Comparison of 16 Plate Designs. Materials (Basel, Switzerland). 2020. Vol. 13, Iss. 8. P. 1953. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081953
Munante-Cardenas J. L., Facchina Nunes P. H., Passeri L. A. Etiology, treatment, and complications of mandibular fractures. The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 2015. Vol. 26, № 3. P. 611–615 doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001273.
Pickrell B. B., Serebrakian A. T., Maricevich R. S. Mandible Fractures. Seminars in plastic surgery. 2017. Vol. 31, № 2. P. 100–107 doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601374.
Odom E. B., Snyder-Warwick A. K. Mandible Fracture Complications and Infection: The Influence of Demographics and Modifiable Factors. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2016. Vol. 138, № 2. P. 282e–289e doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002385
Perez D., Ellis E. 3rd. Complications of Mandibular Fracture Repair and Secondary Reconstruction. Seminars in plastic surgery. 2020. Vol. 34, № 4. P. 225–231 doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721758.
Копчак А. В. Порівняльна оцінка способів остеосинтезу виросткового відростку нижньої щелепи при його травматичних переломах. Acta Medica Leopoliensia. 2014. Т. 20, № 2. С. 9–17.
Mijiti A., Ling W., Tuerdi M., Maimaiti A., Tuerxun J., et al. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures treated at a university hospital, Xinjiang, China: A 5-year retrospective study. Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. 2014. Vol. 42, № 3. P. 227–233 doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.005.
Kostakis G., Stathopoulos P., Dais P., Gkinis G., Igoumenakis D. et al. An epidemiologic analysis of 1,142 maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2012. Vol. 114, 5 Suppl. P. S69–S73 doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.029.
Chen C. L., Zenga J., Patel R., Branham G. Complications and Reoperations in Mandibular Angle Fractures. JAMA facial plastic surgery. 2018. Vol. 20, № 3. P. 238–243 doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2017.2227.
Juncar M., Tent P. A., Juncar R. I., Harangus A., Mircea R. An epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures: a 10-year cross-sectional cohort retrospective study of 1007 patients. BMC oral health. 2021. Vol. 21, № 1. P. 128 doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01503-5.
Chatterjee A., Gunashekhar S., Karthic R., Karthika S., Edsor E., Nair R. U Comparison of Single Versus Two Non-Compression Miniplates in the Management of Unfavourable Angle Fracture of the Mandible Orginal Research. Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences. 2023. Vol. 15, (Suppl 1). P. S486–S489 doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_555_22.
Young T. K., Tuckett J., Johnson N. R., Breik O. Rigid versus non-rigid fixation for bilateral mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective multicentre review. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2023. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011103. Advance online publication doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011103.