Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open FractureNCT03803150
Evaluation of Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Versus Retromandibular Through Parotid Approach
A study testing PRA approach and RT approach in people with Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open Fracture and Facial Nerve Injuries, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular fractures. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open Fracture, Facial Nerve Injuries
- What is being tested?
- PRA approach and RT approach
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2019to 8 May 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients age should be more than 18 year.
- Patients with subcondylar fracture and need to open reduction and internal fixation using titanium miniplates.
- Patients should be free from any traumatic injuries to facial nerve or parotid gland.
- Availability of preoperative and postoperative panoramic radiographs and/or computed tomography (CT) images.
- Mental status permitting an adequate neuromotor examination.
- Regular clinical follow-up, documented in our clinical and radiographic evaluation charts, at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively
Who cannot join
- Intraoral treatment of subcondylar fracture.
- Incooperative patients.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Comparative Study Between Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Approach and Retromandibular Transparotid Approach in Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fracture on Facial Nerve Injury and Parotid Fistula
Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular fractures. Though remained controversial for a long time, surgical treatment of displaced subcondylar fractures appears today as the gold standard.
Although there is a developing preference for open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures, the optimal approach to the ramus condylar unit remains controversial. Various approaches have been proposed, and each has specific shortcomings and disadvantages. Retromandibular, submandibular, transoral, and through parotid approaches are generally performed and sometimes used with an endoscope. Limited access and injury to the facial nerve are the most common problems, while Wilson introduced a new through masseter anteroparotid approach, this technique offers excellent access to the ramus condylar unit, and facial nerve damage risk is reduced.
Read the detailed description
Fractures of the mandibular condylar process have been documented to be one of the most common occurring mandibular fractures.
When open treatment is selected, several surgical approaches can be used to expose, reduce, and stabilize the fracture site, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Surgical approaches to the fractured mandibular condyle are broadly classified into intraoral and extraoral approaches. Intraoral approaches can be performed with or without endoscopic assistance. The most common extraoral approaches are submandibular, Risdon, preauricular, retroauricular, and retromandibular through parotid or through masseter approaches.
An intraoral approach is time consuming and requires special instruments such as an endoscope, and additional training. Furthermore, cases of high fractures and/or medially displaced condylar fractures are technically difficult to manage through an intraoral approach, incorrect anatomical reduction, condylar head resorption, myofascial pain, and malocclusions have been reported to be more common complications following the intraoral approach when compared to extraoral approaches.
In contrast, extraoral approaches are commonly used because they produce better visualization of the fracture site and therefore facilitate fracture reduction and fixation. However, extraoral approaches are complicated by the risk of injury to the facial, great auricular, and auriculotemporal nerves, visible scars, sialoceles, Frey syndrome and salivary fistulas.
- Being tested
- PRA approach, RT approach
- Medical subject headings
- Facial Nerve Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PRA approachProcedure or surgery
A preauricular incision will be made that extends downwards in a curvilinear fashion in the cervicomastoid skin crease, though any variation in this incision will suffice. The great auricular nerve will be preserved and the flap raised in the subdermal fat plane, superficial to the superficial musculoaponeurotic layer to allow access to the masseter adjacent to the anteroinferior edge of the parotid gland, just below the parotid duct. Branches of the facial nerve will be readily identified and avoided with or without loupe magnification, on the surface of the masseter muscle.
RT approachProcedure or surgery
The incision for the retromandibular approach begins 5mm below ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. Initial incision begins through skin and subcutaneous tissues,platysma muscle ,(SMAS), parotid capsule Dissection is continued until the only tissue remaining on the posterior border of the mandible will be the periosteum of pterygomassetric sling,then the fracture site will exposed and reduced.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PRA approach | Experimental | PRA extends downward in curvilinear fashion in cervicomastoid skin crease Receives: Procedure: PRA approach |
| RT approach | Active comparator | RT begins 5mm below the ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. Receives: Procedure: RT approach |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Minimize facial nerve injury
Regarding facial nerve injury the measuring device is House- brachmann facial nerve grading system (HBFNGS) while the measuring unit is numerical from (I-VI) I= Normal, II= Mild dysfunction, III= Moderate dysfunction, IV= Moderately severe dysfunction, V= Severe dysfunction, VI= Total paralysis.
I= Better while VI= Worse
Measured: Concerning the facial injury will be at 6 months
Minimize salivary fistula
Regarding salivary fistula the measuring device is clinical examination while the measuring unit is binary question.
Measured: Salivary fistula at 1 week
Secondary outcomes (1)
Reduce scar formation
The character of any observed scar was scored as (1) no perceptible scar, (2) visible but thin and linear scar, (3) wide scar, and (4) hypertrophic scar or keloid. while the measuring unit is numerical from (1-4)
1= Better while 4= Worse
Measured: at 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jan 2019
- Study start1 Feb 2019
- Primary completion30 Jan 2022
- Study completion8 May 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open FractureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cairo UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Block, consecutive, 1:1 Consecutive because patients with subcondylar fracture need immediate surgical intervention, that is why investigators can not wait to collect the whole sample size and make computer generated randomization .
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hani Taher Hibatullah Ali, Cairo University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03803150
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- TMAP in subcondylar fracture
- Status last verified
- Jul 2022
- First submitted
- 24 Dec 2018
- Last updated
- 2 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Once I finished the study I will share the data
Publications
Tang W, Gao C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L, Tian W. Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Mar;67(3):552-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066.
PubMed 19231779Lutz JC, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, Wilk A, Kahn JL. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Dec;32(10):963-9. doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0663-z. Epub 2010 May 12.
PubMed 20461515Guerrissi JO. A transparotid transcutaneous approach for internal rigid fixation in condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2002 Jul;13(4):568-71. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200207000-00018.
PubMed 12140424Ozkan HS, Sahin B, Gorgu M, Melikoglu C. Results of transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Nov;21(6):1882-3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4aef7.
PubMed 21119445Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Feb;43(1):57-60. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.09.011.
PubMed 15620776Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1990 Aug;18(6):251-4. doi: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80425-1.
PubMed 2212022Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, Gonzalez C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb;62(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.010.
PubMed 14762747Choi BH, Yoo JH. Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999 Sep;88(3):292-6. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70030-2.
PubMed 10503856Salgarelli AC, Anesi A, Bellini P, Pollastri G, Tanza D, Barberini S, Chiarini L. How to improve retromandibular transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures: our clinical experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;42(4):464-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.12.012. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
PubMed 23395651Jensen T, Jensen J, Norholt SE, Dahl M, Lenk-Hansen L, Svensson P. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures by an intraoral approach: a long-term follow-up study of 15 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1771-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.069.
PubMed 17113444Schmidseder R, Scheunemann H. Nerve injury in fractures of the condylar neck. J Maxillofac Surg. 1977 Sep;5(3):186-90. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0503(77)80103-3.
PubMed 269890Weinberg S, Kryshtalskyj B. Facial nerve function following temporomandibular joint surgery using the preauricular approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Oct;50(10):1048-51. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90488-l.
PubMed 1527657Handschel J, Ruggeberg T, Depprich R, Schwarz F, Meyer U, Kubler NR, Naujoks C. Comparison of various approaches for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):e397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.02.012. Epub 2012 Mar 21.
PubMed 22440318
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparative Study Between Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Approach and Retromandibular Transparotid Approach in Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fracture on Facial Nerve Injury and Parotid Fistula
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03803150
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TMAP in subcondylar fracture
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 8 May 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular fractures. Though remained controversial for a long time, surgical treatment of displaced subcondylar fractures appears today as the gold standard.
Although there is a developing preference for open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures, the optimal approach to the ramus condylar unit remains controversial. Various approaches have been proposed, and each has specific shortcomings and disadvantages. Retromandibular, submandibular, transoral, and through parotid approaches are generally performed and sometimes used with an endoscope. Limited access and injury to the facial nerve are the most common problems, while Wilson introduced a new through masseter anteroparotid approach, this technique offers excellent access to the ramus condylar unit, and facial nerve damage risk is reduced.
Detailed description
Fractures of the mandibular condylar process have been documented to be one of the most common occurring mandibular fractures.
When open treatment is selected, several surgical approaches can be used to expose, reduce, and stabilize the fracture site, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Surgical approaches to the fractured mandibular condyle are broadly classified into intraoral and extraoral approaches. Intraoral approaches can be performed with or without endoscopic assistance. The most common extraoral approaches are submandibular, Risdon, preauricular, retroauricular, and retromandibular through parotid or through masseter approaches.
An intraoral approach is time consuming and requires special instruments such as an endoscope, and additional training. Furthermore, cases of high fractures and/or medially displaced condylar fractures are technically difficult to manage through an intraoral approach, incorrect anatomical reduction, condylar head resorption, myofascial pain, and malocclusions have been reported to be more common complications following the intraoral approach when compared to extraoral approaches.
In contrast, extraoral approaches are commonly used because they produce better visualization of the fracture site and therefore facilitate fracture reduction and fixation. However, extraoral approaches are complicated by the risk of injury to the facial, great auricular, and auriculotemporal nerves, visible scars, sialoceles, Frey syndrome and salivary fistulas.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Block, consecutive, 1:1 Consecutive because patients with subcondylar fracture need immediate surgical intervention, that is why investigators can not wait to collect the whole sample size and make computer generated randomization .
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PRA approach | Experimental | Procedure: PRA approachPRA extends downward in curvilinear fashion in cervicomastoid skin crease |
| RT approach | Active comparator | Procedure: RT approachRT begins 5mm below the ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients age should be more than 18 year.
- Patients with subcondylar fracture and need to open reduction and internal fixation using titanium miniplates.
- Patients should be free from any traumatic injuries to facial nerve or parotid gland.
- Availability of preoperative and postoperative panoramic radiographs and/or computed tomography (CT) images.
- Mental status permitting an adequate neuromotor examination.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Intraoral treatment of subcondylar fracture.
- Incooperative patients.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PRA approachA preauricular incision will be made that extends downwards in a curvilinear fashion in the cervicomastoid skin crease, though any variation in this incision will suffice. The great auricular nerve will be preserved and the flap raised in the subdermal fat plane, superficial to the superficial musculoaponeurotic layer to allow access to the masseter adjacent to the anteroinferior edge of the parotid gland, just below the parotid duct. Branches of the facial nerve will be readily identified and avoided with or without loupe magnification, on the surface of the masseter muscle. | Procedure or surgery | PRA approach |
| RT approachThe incision for the retromandibular approach begins 5mm below ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. Initial incision begins through skin and subcutaneous tissues,platysma muscle ,(SMAS), parotid capsule Dissection is continued until the only tissue remaining on the posterior border of the mandible will be the periosteum of pterygomassetric sling,then the fracture site will exposed and reduced. | Procedure or surgery | RT approach |
Primary outcome
Minimize facial nerve injury
Time frame: Concerning the facial injury will be at 6 months
Regarding facial nerve injury the measuring device is House- brachmann facial nerve grading system (HBFNGS) while the measuring unit is numerical from (I-VI) I= Normal, II= Mild dysfunction, III= Moderate dysfunction, IV= Moderately severe dysfunction, V= Severe dysfunction, VI= Total paralysis. I= Better while VI= Worse
Minimize salivary fistula
Time frame: Salivary fistula at 1 week
Regarding salivary fistula the measuring device is clinical examination while the measuring unit is binary question.
1 secondary outcome
Reduce scar formation
Time frame: at 6 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Aug 2022.
- Results publication: PubMed 19231779Tang W, Gao C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L, Tian W. Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Mar;67(3):552-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066.
- Results publication: PubMed 20461515Lutz JC, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, Wilk A, Kahn JL. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Dec;32(10):963-9. doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0663-z. Epub 2010 May 12.
- Results publication: PubMed 12140424Guerrissi JO. A transparotid transcutaneous approach for internal rigid fixation in condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2002 Jul;13(4):568-71. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200207000-00018.
- Results publication: PubMed 21119445Ozkan HS, Sahin B, Gorgu M, Melikoglu C. Results of transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Nov;21(6):1882-3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4aef7.
- Results publication: PubMed 15620776Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Feb;43(1):57-60. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.09.011.
- Results publication: PubMed 2212022Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1990 Aug;18(6):251-4. doi: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80425-1.
- Results publication: PubMed 14762747Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, Gonzalez C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb;62(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.010.
- Results publication: PubMed 10503856Choi BH, Yoo JH. Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999 Sep;88(3):292-6. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70030-2.
- Results publication: PubMed 23395651Salgarelli AC, Anesi A, Bellini P, Pollastri G, Tanza D, Barberini S, Chiarini L. How to improve retromandibular transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures: our clinical experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;42(4):464-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.12.012. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
- Results publication: PubMed 17113444Jensen T, Jensen J, Norholt SE, Dahl M, Lenk-Hansen L, Svensson P. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures by an intraoral approach: a long-term follow-up study of 15 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1771-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.069.
- Results publication: PubMed 269890Schmidseder R, Scheunemann H. Nerve injury in fractures of the condylar neck. J Maxillofac Surg. 1977 Sep;5(3):186-90. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0503(77)80103-3.
- Results publication: PubMed 1527657Weinberg S, Kryshtalskyj B. Facial nerve function following temporomandibular joint surgery using the preauricular approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Oct;50(10):1048-51. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90488-l.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Once I finished the study I will share the data
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PRA approach and RT approach in people with Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open Fracture and Facial Nerve Injuries, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Minimize facial nerve injury (time frame: Concerning the facial injury will be at 6 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03803150, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Aug 2022.