MINIMALLY-INVASIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL OPEN APPROACH IN MANDIBULAR FRACTURE FIXATION: A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background:Mandibular fractures are a common facial injury, and the treatment aims to restore both anatomical
and functional aspects of the jaw. Traditional open surgery has been the standard approach, but minimally invasive
techniques are emerging as alternatives, offering potential benefits in terms of healing time, complications, and
recovery. This study compares the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery versus traditional open surgery in
mandibular fracture fixation.
Methods:A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 100 adult patients who sustained mandibular fractures
requiring surgical intervention. Fifty patients were assigned to the minimally invasive surgery group and fifty to
the traditional open surgery group. Primary outcomes included fracture healing time, postoperative complications,
and functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included aesthetic satisfaction, postoperative pain, and patient
satisfaction. Data were analyzed using statistical methods to compare the two groups.
Results:The minimally invasive group had faster fracture healing (6.3 weeks vs. 7.1 weeks, p < 0.05), fewer
complications (8% vs. 20%, p < 0.05), better functional recovery (38 mm vs. 32 mm mouth opening, p < 0.05), and
superior aesthetic outcomes (VAS score 8.7 vs. 7.3, p < 0.05). Patients in the minimally invasive group reported
lower pain levels and higher overall satisfaction (94% vs. 84%, p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery for mandibular fracture fixation demonstrated superior outcomes in terms
of healing time, complications, functional recovery, and patient satisfaction compared to traditional open surgery.
This technique offers a promising alternative, particularly for patients where aesthetic outcomes and reduced
recovery time are priorities. Larger, multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings.