Quality of life in treatment of mandibular fractures using closed reduction and maxillomandibular fixation in comparison with open reduction and internal fixation – A randomized prospective study

• Published in: Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery 2014-12, Vol.42 (8), p.1821-1826
• Main Authors: Omeje, Kevin U, Rana, Majeed, Adebola, Adetokunbo R, Efunkoya, Akinwale A, Olasoji, Hector O, Purcz, Nicolai, Gellrich, Nils-Claudius, Rana, Madiha
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Anxiety - psychology; Attitude to Health; Bone Plates; Bone Screws; Case-Control Studies; Closed reduction; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deglutition - physiology; Dentistry; Eating - physiology; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation; Fracture Fixation, Internal - psychology; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Jaw Fixation Techniques - instrumentation; Jaw Fixation Techniques - psychology; Male; Mandibular fracture; Mandibular Fractures - psychology; Mandibular Fractures - surgery; Mandibular Fractures - therapy; Open reduction; Pain, Postoperative - psychology; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Self Concept; Speech - physiology; Surgery; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1010-5182; 1878-4119
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.06.021

Abstract Treatment of mandibular fractures by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is often assumed to be superior to treatment by close reduction and maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) because patients managed by ORIF seem to be rehabilitated earlier according to functional and social aspects. This assumption is often from surgeon's perspective, not taking into account patient's view point. This study highlights a comparative assessment between ORIF and MMF from the patients' perspective. Fifty six patients with mandibular fractures within the tooth bearing areas of the mandible were prospectively studied in a randomized controlled pattern for postoperative Quality of Life (QoL) after ORIF versus MMF. Both groups were analyzed preoperatively, at 1 day, 6 and 8 weeks regarding their QoL using the General Oral Health Assessment Index questionnaire (GOHAI). No significant statistical difference was found between the groups regarding overall QoL. Patients managed by MMF were more affected by psychosocial and physical domains whereas patients managed by ORIF were more affected by the pain domain. The results demonstrate that the treatment affects the psychosocial, physical and pain domain differentially. When both treatments are possible the patient's should be enlightened on the advantages and disadvantages of both treatment modalities to guide their choice of treatment.