The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Postoperative Evaluation of Nerve Function Following Coronal Incisions for Facial Fractures: A Clinical Study

Anwesha Pattnayak, Naman Awasthi, Narendra V Penumatsa, Prasanth Panicker, Sohail Ferdous, Mukesh Soni

Keywords : Coronal incision, Craniomaxillofacial, Mid-face fractures, Nerve deficit, Temporal

Citation Information : Pattnayak A, Awasthi N, Penumatsa NV, Panicker P, Ferdous S, Soni M. Postoperative Evaluation of Nerve Function Following Coronal Incisions for Facial Fractures: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (12):1135-1140.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3743

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 05-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the postoperative nerve function following coronal incisions for facial fractures. Materials and methods: The present study included 30 patients with craniomaxillofacial trauma treated using the bi-temporal/coronal or hemicoronal approach. A preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of the face with 3D reconstruction was done for all the patients to determine the exact extent of the fractures. All the cases were undertaken with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. Under all aseptic conditions, a coronal incision was given, reflection of the flap was done and fracture segments were approached. Reduction and fixation were achieved at the sites and closure was done. Postoperatively, neurological deficits in the zygomaticotemporal, supraorbital, and frontal branches of the facial nerve were closely observed at 1-, 4-, 16-, 24-, and 52-weeks intervals. Results: In all 30 patients, the duration of recovery varied between 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 32 weeks and 52 weeks but at the end of 32–52 weeks all the deficits subsided. There was a marked recovery between 16 and 24 weeks, with a complete resolution of 52 weeks. The study found a significant association between recovery time and nerve healing, highlighting the coronal approach's effectiveness in treating complex facial fractures while preserving nerve integrity. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study found that while patients undergoing craniomaxillofacial reconstruction via the coronal approach initially experienced notable neurological deficits, full nerve function was ultimately restored over time, underscoring a strong correlation between nerve healing and favorable functional outcomes. Clinical significance: The coronal approach not only delivers superior esthetic results but also safeguards neural integrity, minimizing the risk of nerve impairment often associated with traditional methods of fracture management. Coronal incisions provide superior access for precise anatomic reduction and preserve nerve integrity.


PDF Share
  1. Kumar VS, Rao NK, Mohan KR, et al. Minimizing complications associated with coronal approach by application of various modifications in surgical technique for treating facial trauma: A prospective study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2016;7:21–28. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.196143.
  2. Leena L. Versatility of bicoronal flap approach in head and neck surgeries. Univ J Surg Surg Spec 2017;3:4. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216023679_VERSATILITY_OF_BICORONAL_FLAP_APPROACH_IN_HEAD_AND_NECK_SURGERIES.
  3. Abubaker AO, Sotereanos G, Patterson GT. Use of the coronal surgical incision for reconstruction of severe craniomaxillofacial injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48(6):579–586. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80470-7.
  4. Mahipathy SR, Durairaj AR, Sundaramurthy N, et al. Coronal incision: An approach to facial fractures. Ann Appl Biosci 2017;4:A89–A93. DOI: 10.21276/AABS.1430.
  5. Ellis E, Zide MF. Surgical approaches to the facial skeleton. In: The coronal approach. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
  6. Fox AJ, Tatum SA. The coronal incision. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5(3):259–262. DOI: 10.1001/archfaci.5.3.259.
  7. Thiagarajan B. Versatility of bicoronal flap approach in head and neck surgeries. J Otolaryngol (Online) 2011. Available from: https://versatility_of_bicoronal_flap_approach_in_head_and_neck_surgeries.pdf.
  8. Rajmohan S, Tauro D, Bagulkar B, et al. Coronal/hemicoronal approach: A gateway to craniomaxillofacial region. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(8):PC01–PC05. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14797.6296.
  9. Dunaway DJ, Trott JA. Open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures via an extended bicoronal approach with a masseteric myotomy. Br J Plast Surg 1996;49(2):79–84. DOI: 10.1016/s0007-1226(96)90077-6.
  10. Marschall MA, Cohen M, Garcia J, et al. Craniofacial approach for the reconstruction of severe facial injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;46:305–310. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(88)90014-6.
  11. Matic DB, Kim S. Temporal hollowing following coronal incision: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:379e385. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318170724c.
  12. Shepherd DE, Ward-Booth RP, Moos KF. The morbidity of bicoronal flaps in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1985;23(1): 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/0266-4356(85)90072-5.
  13. Ali K, Lettieri SC. Management of panfacial fracture. Semin Plast Surg 2017; 31:108–117. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601579.
  14. Sikkerimath BC, Anshu A, Jose A, et al. Evaluation of postoperative sensory and motor deficit following craniomaxillofacial reconstruction using bicoronal flap: An evaluative study. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2021;11(1):21–26. DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_426_20.
  15. Zhang QB, Dong YJ, Li ZB, et al. Coronal incision for treating zygomatic complex fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34(3):182–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2005.09.004.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.