Comparative Benefits of Open versus Closed Reduction of Condylar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Many fractures of the mandibular condylar neck are amenable to both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed treatment. Clinical outcomes following these two modalities remains a topic of debate. This systematic review critically appraises the literature to compare them following these treatment options.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical outcomes in ORIF versus closed treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registries were queried from 1946 to 2020. The quality of evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

Of 1507 screened articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. ORIF was favored significantly when evaluating temporomandibular joint pain [relative risk (RR), 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7] (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 3; 95% CI, 2 to 6), laterotrusive movements of the mandible (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.0) (standardized mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.3), and malocclusion (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7) (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 19; 95% CI, 10 to 200). However, ORIF yielded a higher incidence of postoperative infection (RR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.9 to 13.8) and must be weighed against the understood risk of facial nerve injury.

Meta-analysis of high-level evidence in randomized controlled trial suggests that ORIF significantly improves functional outcomes, decreases pain, and restores occlusion and jaw symmetry. These long-term benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of postoperative infection and exposure of the facial nerve to potential injury.