Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fracture repair with cost implications

Wayne D. Hsueh, Clyde B. Schechter, I. Tien Shaw, Howard D. Stupak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fractures and provide cost estimates for comparison. Study Design: A retrospective review from January 2005 to June 2013 was performed of patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures at a level I trauma center. Methods: Patients were treated by three surgical specialties: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. Inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed for pertinent data including age, gender, duration of follow-up, presence of other mandible fractures, surgical approach, surgical team, operative time, and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 155 patients with mandibular angle fractures, 74% underwent open reduction internal fixation through an intraoral approach, whereas 26% of patients were treated with an extraoral approach. The occurrence of any complication was 69.6% in the extraoral group and 39% in the intraoral group (P=0.009). In propensity-weighted analysis, however, the occurrence of any complication was less frequent in intraoral cases but no longer statistically significant (odd ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P=0.053). Operating room time was significantly shorter with the intraoral approach. We estimate that the intraoral approach directly saves at least $2,900 per case. Conclusion: We recommend the use of an intraoral approach for the repair of mandibular angle fractures when clinically appropriate. This can result in a comparable rate of success, however, with significant cost savings to the health care system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalLaryngoscope
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2015

Fingerprint

Mandibular Fractures
Costs and Cost Analysis
Oral Surgery
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures
Surgical Specialties
Cost Savings
Trauma Centers
Otolaryngology
Plastic Surgery
Operating Rooms
Operative Time
Mandible
Medical Records
Inpatients
Outpatients
Neck
Odds Ratio
Head
Confidence Intervals
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Cost
  • Extraoral
  • Intraoral
  • Mandible fracture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fracture repair with cost implications. / Hsueh, Wayne D.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Tien Shaw, I.; Stupak, Howard D.

In: Laryngoscope, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a44bed69cf1e42809888a562fbd0a11e,
title = "Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fracture repair with cost implications",
abstract = "Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fractures and provide cost estimates for comparison. Study Design: A retrospective review from January 2005 to June 2013 was performed of patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures at a level I trauma center. Methods: Patients were treated by three surgical specialties: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. Inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed for pertinent data including age, gender, duration of follow-up, presence of other mandible fractures, surgical approach, surgical team, operative time, and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 155 patients with mandibular angle fractures, 74{\%} underwent open reduction internal fixation through an intraoral approach, whereas 26{\%} of patients were treated with an extraoral approach. The occurrence of any complication was 69.6{\%} in the extraoral group and 39{\%} in the intraoral group (P=0.009). In propensity-weighted analysis, however, the occurrence of any complication was less frequent in intraoral cases but no longer statistically significant (odd ratio 0.28; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P=0.053). Operating room time was significantly shorter with the intraoral approach. We estimate that the intraoral approach directly saves at least $2,900 per case. Conclusion: We recommend the use of an intraoral approach for the repair of mandibular angle fractures when clinically appropriate. This can result in a comparable rate of success, however, with significant cost savings to the health care system.",
keywords = "Cost, Extraoral, Intraoral, Mandible fracture",
author = "Hsueh, {Wayne D.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and {Tien Shaw}, I. and Stupak, {Howard D.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/lary.25405",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fracture repair with cost implications

AU - Hsueh, Wayne D.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Tien Shaw, I.

AU - Stupak, Howard D.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fractures and provide cost estimates for comparison. Study Design: A retrospective review from January 2005 to June 2013 was performed of patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures at a level I trauma center. Methods: Patients were treated by three surgical specialties: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. Inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed for pertinent data including age, gender, duration of follow-up, presence of other mandible fractures, surgical approach, surgical team, operative time, and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 155 patients with mandibular angle fractures, 74% underwent open reduction internal fixation through an intraoral approach, whereas 26% of patients were treated with an extraoral approach. The occurrence of any complication was 69.6% in the extraoral group and 39% in the intraoral group (P=0.009). In propensity-weighted analysis, however, the occurrence of any complication was less frequent in intraoral cases but no longer statistically significant (odd ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P=0.053). Operating room time was significantly shorter with the intraoral approach. We estimate that the intraoral approach directly saves at least $2,900 per case. Conclusion: We recommend the use of an intraoral approach for the repair of mandibular angle fractures when clinically appropriate. This can result in a comparable rate of success, however, with significant cost savings to the health care system.

AB - Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fractures and provide cost estimates for comparison. Study Design: A retrospective review from January 2005 to June 2013 was performed of patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures at a level I trauma center. Methods: Patients were treated by three surgical specialties: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. Inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed for pertinent data including age, gender, duration of follow-up, presence of other mandible fractures, surgical approach, surgical team, operative time, and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 155 patients with mandibular angle fractures, 74% underwent open reduction internal fixation through an intraoral approach, whereas 26% of patients were treated with an extraoral approach. The occurrence of any complication was 69.6% in the extraoral group and 39% in the intraoral group (P=0.009). In propensity-weighted analysis, however, the occurrence of any complication was less frequent in intraoral cases but no longer statistically significant (odd ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P=0.053). Operating room time was significantly shorter with the intraoral approach. We estimate that the intraoral approach directly saves at least $2,900 per case. Conclusion: We recommend the use of an intraoral approach for the repair of mandibular angle fractures when clinically appropriate. This can result in a comparable rate of success, however, with significant cost savings to the health care system.

KW - Cost

KW - Extraoral

KW - Intraoral

KW - Mandible fracture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84936797246&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84936797246&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/lary.25405

DO - 10.1002/lary.25405

M3 - Article

C2 - 26154627

AN - SCOPUS:84936797246

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

ER -