Evaluation of the effectiveness of different puncture points for second cannula in double puncture arthrocentesis of temporomandibular joint


ŞENTÜRK M. F. , YAZICI T., BAYKUL T.

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2021 (Journal Indexed in SCI Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.08.003
  • Title of Journal : Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Keywords: Arthrocentesis, Cannula puncture, Cohort study, Outcome research, Temporomandibular disorder

Abstract

© 2021 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial SurgeryThe study at checking if treatment outcomes in double puncture temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis (DPTMJA) changed when the puncture points of the second cannula punctate were changed. Using a retrospective cohort study design, the investigators enrolled a sample of temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD, internal derangement) patients receiving DPTMJA. The decision of whether to perform a modified or traditional arthrocentesis was made by the patients: Patients who accepted the close cannula relationship were evaluated as group 1 (modification group), and those who did not agree as group 2 (traditional group). The predictor variable was puncture points of the second cannula (close to vs. far from the first cannula; group 1 and 2, respectively). The main outcome variables included maximum mouth opening (MMO), and pain assessed using a Likert-type (0–10) visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment and at 1st day and 3rd months intervals. Appropriate statistics were computed using P < .05 was considered significant. The study sample comprised 32 patients (93.8% females; 50% in each study arm) with an average age of 36.9 ± 15.3 years (range, 18–78). Although, patient age and gender, and baseline VAS in both groups were not significant different (P > .05), the baseline MMO in group 2 was significant higher than that in group 1 (P = .03). The within-group analyses demonstrated the significant improvement of both MMO and VAS at postoperative month 3 (P < .05). However, the between-group analyses rejected the significant differences between the 2 groups at day 1 and month 3 (P > .05). Within the limitations of the study the choice of one or the other technique should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.