Risk of complications with retromandibular transparotid vs. anteroparotid approach for condylar fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Retromandibular approaches have been known to reduce the risk of facial nerve palsy and improve the management of condylar fractures. As such, it is necessary to identify the best approach with the least complications. This review was conducted to obtain a comprehensive estimate for the risk of complications following both the transparotid and the anteroparotid approach for patients with mandibular condylar fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar from January 1964 until October 2021. The Newcastle Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality of the included studies. A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model and reported pooled incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A funnel plot was used to assess possible publication biases. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies with 2,096 participants were assessed and the majority of the included studies (29 out of 40 studies) had a high risk of bias. The pooled incidence of facial nerve palsy following the transparotid approach was 13% (95% CI: 10%-17%; I2=66.8%), and 2% (95% CI: 1%-5%; I2=57.8%) following the anteroparotid approach. The pooled incidence of sialocele following the transparotid approach was 2% (95% CI: 0%-4%; I2=45.8%), and 2% (95% CI: 1%-5%; I2=67.2%) following the anteroparotid approach. The pooled incidence of postoperative infection following the transparotid approach was 1% (95% CI: 0%-4%; I2=63.1%), and 1% (95% CI: 0%-3%; I2=0%) following the anteroparotid approach. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of facial nerve palsy was higher among patients undergoing the transparotid approach when compared to patients undergoing the anteroparotid approach. Further trials comparing both of these approaches are required to identify the best methodology with the lowest complication rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".