الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 246 |  |  |
| | | from | 246 | | |
Abstract
The aim of our study was to describe techniques to approach various types of maxillofacial fractures that are amenable to endoscopic techniques namely those of the nose, arch of the zygoma (cheek bone), anterior table of the frontal sinus, floor of the orbit and subcondylar process of mandible (lower jaw). We operated 40 patients (27 males and 13 females). We also tried to assess how much effective these techniques are by assessing various variables associated with every type of the surgical techniques described. Those variables included the time of the operation, the amount of blood lost in the operation, the subjective amount of pain the patients expressed after these endoscopic techniques both on the first post-operative day and after the 1st week of surgery. We also tried to assess the downsides of the endoscopeassisted techniques by recording any associated complications or failure to reduce the fractures at hand. All the variables recorded were first described individually for each fracture type and technique then to put the results into context and draw further conclusions in comparison to the currently adopted techniques we compared the outcomes of the endoscope-assisted techniques to historic control groups of similar fracture types operated with the traditional methods also by the authors. The fracture nose groups data (13 patients in the endoscope group and 17 patients in the standard approach group) showed that the adopted endoscope-assisted techniques were more time consuming and associated with more blood loss in the surgery and more pain on the 1st postoperative day. The endoscope-assisted technique tended to produce less cases of inadequate reduction of the fracture by a percentage of 17.65% which was not statistically significant and needs to be reassessed in larger study with more patients. The endoscope-assisted technique was statistically no different than the traditional closed method of reduction when it came to the pain after the 1st week of surgery or the rate of complications. The fracture anterior table of frontal sinus groups data (3 patients in the endoscope group and 6 patients in the standard approach group) showed that the adopted endoscope assisted technique had a bit longer operative time than the traditional method of open reduction and internal fixation. On the other hand, the endoscope-assisted technique was able to reduce the rate of complications assisted with the traditional surgical wound by 83.33% which was much statistically and clinically significant. There were no statistical difference regarding the other variables in question namely postoperative pain, and rate of inadequate fracture reduction. The fracture zygoma arch groups data (10 patients in the endoscope group and 8 patients in the standard approach group) showed that the endoscope-assisted technique produced less pain on the 1st post-operative day and it was able to reduce the risk of complications encountered with the traditional open reduction techniques & internal fixation technique by a percentage of 67.5% which was found much statistically and clinically significant. Otherwise, the other outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between the endoscope-assisted and the traditional open surgery groups. The fracture orbital floor groups data (7 patients in the endoscope group and 11 patients in the standard approach group) showed that the endoscope-assisted technique had longer operative time but was not statistically different from the traditional technique in other outcome measures. The subcondylar mandible fracture groups data (7 patients in the endoscope group and 5 patients in the standard approach group) showed that the endoscope-assisted technique was not different from the traditional techniques in any of the assessment domains.