Loading…

Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates

Objective: 1) Compare the rate of removal of Champy’s plates vs 8-hole strut plates used for repair of mandible angle fracture. 2) Determine the reason for removal of these plates. Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2006 to 2010 comparing the removal rate between Champy’s plates...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2011-08, Vol.145 (2_suppl), p.P53-P53
Main Authors: Moore, Evan R., Bayrak, Sinehan, Vural, Emre A., Key, J. Michael, Moody, Marcus W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page P53
container_issue 2_suppl
container_start_page P53
container_title Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery
container_volume 145
creator Moore, Evan R.
Bayrak, Sinehan
Vural, Emre A.
Key, J. Michael
Moody, Marcus W.
description Objective: 1) Compare the rate of removal of Champy’s plates vs 8-hole strut plates used for repair of mandible angle fracture. 2) Determine the reason for removal of these plates. Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2006 to 2010 comparing the removal rate between Champy’s plates and 8-hole strut plates for internal fixation of traumatic angle mandible fractures at a large adult tertiary care hospital. The reason for removal of each plate was then determined from the clinical record. Results: A total of 104 patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 73 angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut and 33 angle fractures were treated with Champy’s plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy’s group (P = .133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 1 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy’s group (P = .005). Conclusion: In our experience, the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of plate removal compared to the Champy’s plate in treating mandible angle fractures. The main reason for plate removal was loose hardware. The rate of removal for loose hardware was higher and statistically significant in the Champy’s group.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0194599811416318a41
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0194599811416318a41</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0194599811416318a41</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_0194599811416318a41</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1829-56458093695db8d2abd8d8b774af27519b67cae0c29cf4252fa6920a195b99f23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAja-QMB24j9YQUQJUqGowDqaJE6aKj-VnVB1xzW4HichUVkixGoW87438x5C55RcUCrlJaE64ForSgMqfKogoAdoQomWnlBUHqLJqPBGyTE6cW5NCBFCygkqIrDZFqzBS1O371DhJXTG4by1-BGarEz6Ciy-aYrK4JmFtOutcVc4bOsN2LIpcLcyWHlRO-xfOtt3eKBwuIJ6s_v6-HT4uRoNT9FRDpUzZz9zit5md69h5M0X9w_hzdxLqWLa4yLgimhfaJ4lKmOQZCpTiZQB5ExyqhMhUzAkZTrNA8ZZDkIzAlTzROuc-VPk731T2zpnTR5vbFmD3cWUxGNX8S9dDdT1ntqWldn9B4kX0dPtjPLh04Eme9pBYeJ129tmiPjnwW_h6Xu9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Moore, Evan R. ; Bayrak, Sinehan ; Vural, Emre A. ; Key, J. Michael ; Moody, Marcus W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moore, Evan R. ; Bayrak, Sinehan ; Vural, Emre A. ; Key, J. Michael ; Moody, Marcus W.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: 1) Compare the rate of removal of Champy’s plates vs 8-hole strut plates used for repair of mandible angle fracture. 2) Determine the reason for removal of these plates. Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2006 to 2010 comparing the removal rate between Champy’s plates and 8-hole strut plates for internal fixation of traumatic angle mandible fractures at a large adult tertiary care hospital. The reason for removal of each plate was then determined from the clinical record. Results: A total of 104 patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 73 angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut and 33 angle fractures were treated with Champy’s plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy’s group (P = .133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 1 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy’s group (P = .005). Conclusion: In our experience, the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of plate removal compared to the Champy’s plate in treating mandible angle fractures. The main reason for plate removal was loose hardware. The rate of removal for loose hardware was higher and statistically significant in the Champy’s group.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0194-5998</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0194599811416318a41</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2011-08, Vol.145 (2_suppl), p.P53-P53</ispartof><rights>Official journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2011</rights><rights>2011 American Association of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moore, Evan R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayrak, Sinehan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vural, Emre A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Key, J. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moody, Marcus W.</creatorcontrib><title>Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates</title><title>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</title><description>Objective: 1) Compare the rate of removal of Champy’s plates vs 8-hole strut plates used for repair of mandible angle fracture. 2) Determine the reason for removal of these plates. Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2006 to 2010 comparing the removal rate between Champy’s plates and 8-hole strut plates for internal fixation of traumatic angle mandible fractures at a large adult tertiary care hospital. The reason for removal of each plate was then determined from the clinical record. Results: A total of 104 patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 73 angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut and 33 angle fractures were treated with Champy’s plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy’s group (P = .133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 1 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy’s group (P = .005). Conclusion: In our experience, the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of plate removal compared to the Champy’s plate in treating mandible angle fractures. The main reason for plate removal was loose hardware. The rate of removal for loose hardware was higher and statistically significant in the Champy’s group.</description><issn>0194-5998</issn><issn>1097-6817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAja-QMB24j9YQUQJUqGowDqaJE6aKj-VnVB1xzW4HichUVkixGoW87438x5C55RcUCrlJaE64ForSgMqfKogoAdoQomWnlBUHqLJqPBGyTE6cW5NCBFCygkqIrDZFqzBS1O371DhJXTG4by1-BGarEz6Ciy-aYrK4JmFtOutcVc4bOsN2LIpcLcyWHlRO-xfOtt3eKBwuIJ6s_v6-HT4uRoNT9FRDpUzZz9zit5md69h5M0X9w_hzdxLqWLa4yLgimhfaJ4lKmOQZCpTiZQB5ExyqhMhUzAkZTrNA8ZZDkIzAlTzROuc-VPk731T2zpnTR5vbFmD3cWUxGNX8S9dDdT1ntqWldn9B4kX0dPtjPLh04Eme9pBYeJ129tmiPjnwW_h6Xu9</recordid><startdate>201108</startdate><enddate>201108</enddate><creator>Moore, Evan R.</creator><creator>Bayrak, Sinehan</creator><creator>Vural, Emre A.</creator><creator>Key, J. Michael</creator><creator>Moody, Marcus W.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201108</creationdate><title>Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates</title><author>Moore, Evan R. ; Bayrak, Sinehan ; Vural, Emre A. ; Key, J. Michael ; Moody, Marcus W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1829-56458093695db8d2abd8d8b774af27519b67cae0c29cf4252fa6920a195b99f23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moore, Evan R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayrak, Sinehan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vural, Emre A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Key, J. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moody, Marcus W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moore, Evan R.</au><au>Bayrak, Sinehan</au><au>Vural, Emre A.</au><au>Key, J. Michael</au><au>Moody, Marcus W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates</atitle><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle><date>2011-08</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>145</volume><issue>2_suppl</issue><spage>P53</spage><epage>P53</epage><pages>P53-P53</pages><issn>0194-5998</issn><eissn>1097-6817</eissn><abstract>Objective: 1) Compare the rate of removal of Champy’s plates vs 8-hole strut plates used for repair of mandible angle fracture. 2) Determine the reason for removal of these plates. Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2006 to 2010 comparing the removal rate between Champy’s plates and 8-hole strut plates for internal fixation of traumatic angle mandible fractures at a large adult tertiary care hospital. The reason for removal of each plate was then determined from the clinical record. Results: A total of 104 patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 73 angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut and 33 angle fractures were treated with Champy’s plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy’s group (P = .133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 1 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy’s group (P = .005). Conclusion: In our experience, the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of plate removal compared to the Champy’s plate in treating mandible angle fractures. The main reason for plate removal was loose hardware. The rate of removal for loose hardware was higher and statistically significant in the Champy’s group.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0194599811416318a41</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0194-5998
ispartof Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2011-08, Vol.145 (2_suppl), p.P53-P53
issn 0194-5998
1097-6817
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0194599811416318a41
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
title Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparing the 8-Hole Strut and Champy’s Plates
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T03%3A01%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hardware%20Removal%20Rates%20for%20Mandibular%20Angle%20Fractures:%20Comparing%20the%208-Hole%20Strut%20and%20Champy%E2%80%99s%20Plates&rft.jtitle=Otolaryngology-head%20and%20neck%20surgery&rft.au=Moore,%20Evan%20R.&rft.date=2011-08&rft.volume=145&rft.issue=2_suppl&rft.spage=P53&rft.epage=P53&rft.pages=P53-P53&rft.issn=0194-5998&rft.eissn=1097-6817&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0194599811416318a41&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_0194599811416318a41%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1829-56458093695db8d2abd8d8b774af27519b67cae0c29cf4252fa6920a195b99f23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0194599811416318a41&rfr_iscdi=true