- Email: [email protected]
Postscript
Copyright C Munksgaard 1998
Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998; 27:267 Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved
ln~'nationalJo~nalof
Oral&
MaxillofidalSurgery ISSN 0901-5027
Postscript This Consensus study has contributed to our understanding of a commonplace problem area and the lack of agreement between maxiUofacial surgeons on the treatment of condylar fractures. The contributors to the symposiurn have gone a long way to enhance our understanding of the subject and the difficulties ahead. I ~ R B A n S has clearly identified what is required in any protocol for a treatment study and has suggested multicentre studies - unfortunately not so easy to set up and complete but very necessary. ULRICH Joos has recommended prospective quantitative studies to gather information and precise values so that appropriate protocols may be developed for treatment. ED ELLIS has warned us of the risks of
inappropriate treatment and of the absolute necessity of careful surgery. Since the Consensus Conference there have been many discussions and conferences on the management of.fractures of the mandibular condyle and notably the International Conference on management of fractures of the mandibular condyle - Groningen University Hospital, Netherlands, September 1997. There is no doubt that condylar fractures require our attention and efforts are being made to find the most appropriate treatment modalities. There are cases which do not require open reduction and there are some that advisedly should have it. The latter require safe procedures which are reasonably speedy and which allow the mandible to be held in the optimal position
and yet permit normal movements of the mandible thus eliminating any signiticant interference with the aerodigestive tract either in mastication or to the airway. Not always is this possible and in selected cases the safest and most certain line of treatment may well be intermaxillary fixation. Our goat, whatever the treatment carried out, must be to re-establish normal function and appearance with an absence of complications. I am grateful to MR A. BAKER and MR J. McMAHON at Canniesburn Hospital as well as all those who took part in this survey and my particular thanks go to MEssRs PETER BANKS, UL~CH JOOS and ED ELLIS for their contributions at the Consensus Conference. K.E Moos
Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998; 27:267 Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved
ln~'nationalJo~nalof
Oral&
MaxillofidalSurgery ISSN 0901-5027
Postscript This Consensus study has contributed to our understanding of a commonplace problem area and the lack of agreement between maxiUofacial surgeons on the treatment of condylar fractures. The contributors to the symposiurn have gone a long way to enhance our understanding of the subject and the difficulties ahead. I ~ R B A n S has clearly identified what is required in any protocol for a treatment study and has suggested multicentre studies - unfortunately not so easy to set up and complete but very necessary. ULRICH Joos has recommended prospective quantitative studies to gather information and precise values so that appropriate protocols may be developed for treatment. ED ELLIS has warned us of the risks of
inappropriate treatment and of the absolute necessity of careful surgery. Since the Consensus Conference there have been many discussions and conferences on the management of.fractures of the mandibular condyle and notably the International Conference on management of fractures of the mandibular condyle - Groningen University Hospital, Netherlands, September 1997. There is no doubt that condylar fractures require our attention and efforts are being made to find the most appropriate treatment modalities. There are cases which do not require open reduction and there are some that advisedly should have it. The latter require safe procedures which are reasonably speedy and which allow the mandible to be held in the optimal position
and yet permit normal movements of the mandible thus eliminating any signiticant interference with the aerodigestive tract either in mastication or to the airway. Not always is this possible and in selected cases the safest and most certain line of treatment may well be intermaxillary fixation. Our goat, whatever the treatment carried out, must be to re-establish normal function and appearance with an absence of complications. I am grateful to MR A. BAKER and MR J. McMAHON at Canniesburn Hospital as well as all those who took part in this survey and my particular thanks go to MEssRs PETER BANKS, UL~CH JOOS and ED ELLIS for their contributions at the Consensus Conference. K.E Moos