{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036619718309859155, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016901408450704224, 'mean_word_length': 6.0476190476190474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mandibular Subcondylar Fracture: Improved Functional Outcomes in Selected Patients with Open Treatment

Background: Subcondylar fractures represent 25 to 35 percent of all mandibular fractures, yet the treatment paradigm has remained controversial. Closed treatment relies on the plasticity of the condyle head during recovery, whereas open treatment is challenging and risks facial nerve injury. Perioperative, functional, and patient-reported outcomes were measured to compare methods of open versus closed treatment of subcondylar fractures. Methods: Selected displaced subcondylar fracture cases with open (open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture with maxillomandibular fixation) versus closed (maxillomandibular fixation) treatment were compared (n = 60). Demographics, perioperative data, complications, persistent symptoms, chin deviation, malocclusion, change in mouth opening, functional scores, and FACE-Q patient satisfaction were recorded. Results: Open versus closed groups had similar demographics and perioperative data, except the open group had longer operating room time (76.39 minutes versus 56.15 minutes). In long-term follow-up, open-treated patients had fewer symptoms (9 percent versus 67 percent), less chin deviation (0 percent versus 40 percent), a less restricted mouth opening (3mm versus 5mm), and better functional scores (1.92 versus 0.861). Transient facial nerve weakness was seen in 6 percent of open cases. Conclusion: For selected subcondylar fracture patients, open treatment with endoscopic assistance, nerve monitoring, and specialized plates provides superior long-term results compared to closed treatment when considering symptoms and functional parameters. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.