Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures: Complications and Resource Utilization
Maxillary fractures are frequently managed depending on the surgeon's preferences, nature of the injury, presence of associated injuries, and comorbidities. Current literature advocates open reduction with plating versus closed techniques. However, data defining associated costs and complications comparing the 2 approaches remains lacking.Methods:
National Inpatient Sample (2006–2011) was examined for patients undergoing closed or open (76.73–76.74) reduction of maxillary fractures. Treatment-related complications were regarded as re-exploration of surgical site, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, and dehiscence.Results:
Overall, 22,157 patients were identified. There were 18,874 closed and 3283 open procedures. Median age was 35 (interquartile range 27). Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days. Median total charges were reported as 51486.80 USD. Males comprised 77% of the cohort. 68% of patients were Caucasian. Private payer/HMO accounted for the largest source of health care coverage (43.5%). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, there was no difference in surgical approach regarding incidence of postoperative complications. Males (2.73), nonprivate insurer payer (P = 0.002), South region (2.49), and transferred patients (2.55) had higher incidence of complications. Presence of chronic pulmonary disease (2.87) and coagulopathy (6.62) also increased risk of complications. Length of stay was shorter for open reduction (0.68) versus closed. Total charges were also less for open approach (0.37).Conclusion:
While surgical approach did not affect complications, open approach favorably affected LOS and total charges. Future studies should focus on comorbidities, demographics, and associated injuries in relation to resource utilization for maxillary fractures. In current economic environment, such information might further dictate management options.