How good is good enough? Lessons learned from review of outcomes of 50 patients following extraoral open reduction and internal fixation of condylar neck and base fractures at a regional major trauma centre.

The management of mandibular fractures is routine owing to their frequency, particularly those of the mandibular condyle, which are invariably common. Notwithstanding disparities in the literature, the international consensus towards which fractures of the mandibular condyle benefit from open surgical intervention is almost universally accepted. Closed reduction or non-operative management may be utilised in certain circumstances. Whilst outcome research has addressed complications with respect to operative side effects, outcomes related to the quality of bone repair and the setting in which this is delivered have not been universally addressed. The aim of this study was to determine the predictability of translating an indicated operative treatment plan into an acceptable functional result. We evaluated the outcomes of 59 extracapsular condylar fractures in 50 patients who were treated by extraoral open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) between March 2021 and August 2022. We reviewed demographic data, surgical approach, and plating strategy, and critically evaluated the clinical and radiological outcomes. Whilst we found that the quality of reduction was not universally perfect, the majority were within tolerance, which we set according to the Strasbourg Osteosynthesis Research Group (SORG) definition for minimal displacement (<2 mm overlap and 10° angulation). The cohort had good functional occlusion and minimal long-term postoperative complications. Two patients required re-operation for non-union, and we discuss causality in these cases. In conclusion, we found that ORIF of condylar neck and base fractures is predictable in real-time surgical practice with respect to functional outcome. However, if imperfectly reduced, there is a small risk of non-union.

Gender differences in patients with severe dental infections presenting to hospital.

Introduction Gender differences have been documented in prevalence and morbidity of caries, gingivitis and oral health, but not previously in cervicofacial infection. Identification and minimisation of gender inequalities is a World Health Organisation priority, and there are physiological, behavioural and cultural reasons to suspect that sex and gender differences may be present.Methods Analysis was carried out of the MTReC National Snapshot audit of cervicofacial infections. This database was created by oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees in 2017 and records over 400 variables in 1,002 individual patients admitted to hospital with severe odontogenic infection.Results Records were available for 1,002 patients with cervicofacial infection (456 females and 546 males). There were significant differences between recorded gender in those presenting with airway compromise (male 7% vs female 2%, p = 0.001), severe inflammatory response syndrome (male 60% vs female 39%, p = 0.007) and requirement for awake fibre-optic intubation on admission (male 4% vs female 1%, p = 0.014).Discussion These results suggest that male patients access healthcare later in their disease than female patients, and with more severe systemic compromise. This may be due to prevalent cultural and behavioural norms. As equality of access is the responsibility of the administrator, we discuss methods which might improve timely presentation in males with cervicofacial infections.