# Who’s on Call? Mandibular Fracture Management at a Level I Trauma Center

## TL;DR

This study compares how three surgical specialties manage mandibular fractures at a trauma center and finds differences in treatment approaches but not in complication rates.

## Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of mandibular fracture management strategies among three surgical disciplines at a Level I trauma center.

## Key findings

- Most patients were male, and assaults were the leading cause of injury.
- Specialties differed significantly in using operative vs. non-operative approaches and in postoperative MMF use.
- No significant difference in overall complication rates was found between specialties.

## Abstract

Background: Facial trauma is one of the few surgical conditions that is routinely managed by three distinct disciplines, including Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Otolaryngology (ENT). This study aims to evaluate mandibular trauma management strategies and clinical outcomes among three operating services. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective chart review was performed over a ten-year period (2007–2016) at a major, urban, Level I trauma center for all patients treated for an isolated mandibular injury determined by ICD-9 codes. Of the 2299 patients evaluated for traumatic facial injuries, 191 met the inclusion criteria and 137 had longitudinal data. Patient, fracture, and management characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared among three surgical services. Results: Most patients were male (95.3%), and assaults were the most common etiology of injury (79.1%). The angle/ramus was the most common single location (31.4%), and 47.6% of patients had multiple fractures. There was a statistically significant difference between specialties when assessing the use of operative versus non-operative approaches to fracture management (p < 0.001), and within operative management, for the use of open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) alone versus ORIF with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the overall complications between specialties (p = 0.227). Conclusions: Services differ in their decision to pursue operative versus non-operative management, as well as the decision for postoperative MMF, though these differences in decision-making were not associated with a significant difference in the overall complications.