<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03803150</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>TMAP in subcondylar fracture</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT03803150</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Evaluation of Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Versus Retromandibular Through Parotid Approach</brief_title>
  <official_title>A Comparative Study Between Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Approach and Retromandibular Transparotid Approach in Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fracture on Facial Nerve Injury and Parotid Fistula</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Cairo University</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Cairo University</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>Yes</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to&#xD;
      fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular&#xD;
      fractures. Though remained controversial for a long time, surgical treatment of displaced&#xD;
      subcondylar fractures appears today as the gold standard.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Although there is a developing preference for open reduction and internal fixation of&#xD;
      mandibular condylar fractures, the optimal approach to the ramus condylar unit remains&#xD;
      controversial. Various approaches have been proposed, and each has specific shortcomings and&#xD;
      disadvantages. Retromandibular, submandibular, transoral, and through parotid approaches are&#xD;
      generally performed and sometimes used with an endoscope. Limited access and injury to the&#xD;
      facial nerve are the most common problems, while Wilson introduced a new through masseter&#xD;
      anteroparotid approach, this technique offers excellent access to the ramus condylar unit,&#xD;
      and facial nerve damage risk is reduced.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Fractures of the mandibular condylar process have been documented to be one of the most&#xD;
      common occurring mandibular fractures.&#xD;
&#xD;
      When open treatment is selected, several surgical approaches can be used to expose, reduce,&#xD;
      and stabilize the fracture site, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.&#xD;
      Surgical approaches to the fractured mandibular condyle are broadly classified into intraoral&#xD;
      and extraoral approaches. Intraoral approaches can be performed with or without endoscopic&#xD;
      assistance. The most common extraoral approaches are submandibular, Risdon, preauricular,&#xD;
      retroauricular, and retromandibular through parotid or through masseter approaches.&#xD;
&#xD;
      An intraoral approach is time consuming and requires special instruments such as an&#xD;
      endoscope, and additional training. Furthermore, cases of high fractures and/or medially&#xD;
      displaced condylar fractures are technically difficult to manage through an intraoral&#xD;
      approach, incorrect anatomical reduction, condylar head resorption, myofascial pain, and&#xD;
      malocclusions have been reported to be more common complications following the intraoral&#xD;
      approach when compared to extraoral approaches.&#xD;
&#xD;
      In contrast, extraoral approaches are commonly used because they produce better visualization&#xD;
      of the fracture site and therefore facilitate fracture reduction and fixation. However,&#xD;
      extraoral approaches are complicated by the risk of injury to the facial, great auricular,&#xD;
      and auriculotemporal nerves, visible scars, sialoceles, Frey syndrome and salivary fistulas.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Completed</overall_status>
  <start_date type="Actual">February 1, 2019</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Actual">May 8, 2022</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Actual">January 30, 2022</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>N/A</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <intervention_model_description>Block, consecutive, 1:1 Consecutive because patients with subcondylar fracture need immediate surgical intervention, that is why investigators can not wait to collect the whole sample size and make computer generated randomization .</intervention_model_description>
    <primary_purpose>Prevention</primary_purpose>
    <masking>None (Open Label)</masking>
    <masking_description>Senior supervisor Prof. Dr. Hairy El mossy will generate the allocation sequence.</masking_description>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Minimize facial nerve injury</measure>
    <time_frame>Concerning the facial injury will be at 6 months</time_frame>
    <description>Regarding facial nerve injury the measuring device is House- brachmann facial nerve grading system (HBFNGS) while the measuring unit is numerical from (I-VI) I= Normal, II= Mild dysfunction, III= Moderate dysfunction, IV= Moderately severe dysfunction, V= Severe dysfunction, VI= Total paralysis.&#xD;
I= Better while VI= Worse</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Minimize salivary fistula</measure>
    <time_frame>Salivary fistula at 1 week</time_frame>
    <description>Regarding salivary fistula the measuring device is clinical examination while the measuring unit is binary question.</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Reduce scar formation</measure>
    <time_frame>at 6 months</time_frame>
    <description>The character of any observed scar was scored as (1) no perceptible scar, (2) visible but thin and linear scar, (3) wide scar, and (4) hypertrophic scar or keloid. while the measuring unit is numerical from (1-4)&#xD;
1= Better while 4= Worse</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Actual">20</enrollment>
  <condition>Subcondylar Process of Mandible Open Fracture</condition>
  <condition>Facial Nerve Injuries</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>PRA approach</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
    <description>PRA extends downward in curvilinear fashion in cervicomastoid skin crease</description>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>RT approach</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
    <description>RT begins 5mm below the ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>PRA approach</intervention_name>
    <description>A preauricular incision will be made that extends downwards in a curvilinear fashion in the cervicomastoid skin crease, though any variation in this incision will suffice. The great auricular nerve will be preserved and the flap raised in the subdermal fat plane, superficial to the superficial musculoaponeurotic layer to allow access to the masseter adjacent to the anteroinferior edge of the parotid gland, just below the parotid duct. Branches of the facial nerve will be readily identified and avoided with or without loupe magnification, on the surface of the masseter muscle.</description>
    <arm_group_label>PRA approach</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>RT approach</intervention_name>
    <description>The incision for the retromandibular approach begins 5mm below ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. Initial incision begins through skin and subcutaneous tissues,platysma muscle ,(SMAS), parotid capsule Dissection is continued until the only tissue remaining on the posterior border of the mandible will be the periosteum of pterygomassetric sling,then the fracture site will exposed and reduced.</description>
    <arm_group_label>RT approach</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Patients age should be more than 18 year.&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Patients with subcondylar fracture and need to open reduction and internal fixation&#xD;
             using titanium miniplates.&#xD;
&#xD;
          3. Patients should be free from any traumatic injuries to facial nerve or parotid gland.&#xD;
&#xD;
          4. Availability of preoperative and postoperative panoramic radiographs and/or computed&#xD;
             tomography (CT) images.&#xD;
&#xD;
          5. Mental status permitting an adequate neuromotor examination.&#xD;
&#xD;
          6. Regular clinical follow-up, documented in our clinical and radiographic evaluation&#xD;
             charts, at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Intraoral treatment of subcondylar fracture.&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Incooperative patients.&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>Accepts Healthy Volunteers</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Faculty of dental and oral medicine / Cairo University</name>
      <address>
        <city>Cairo</city>
        <zip>12816</zip>
        <country>Egypt</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>Egypt</country>
  </location_countries>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Tang W, Gao C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L, Tian W. Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Mar;67(3):552-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066.</citation>
    <PMID>19231779</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Lutz JC, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, Wilk A, Kahn JL. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Dec;32(10):963-9. doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0663-z. Epub 2010 May 12.</citation>
    <PMID>20461515</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Guerrissi JO. A transparotid transcutaneous approach for internal rigid fixation in condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2002 Jul;13(4):568-71. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200207000-00018.</citation>
    <PMID>12140424</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Ozkan HS, Sahin B, Gorgu M, Melikoglu C. Results of transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Nov;21(6):1882-3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4aef7.</citation>
    <PMID>21119445</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Feb;43(1):57-60. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.09.011.</citation>
    <PMID>15620776</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1990 Aug;18(6):251-4. doi: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80425-1.</citation>
    <PMID>2212022</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, Gonzalez C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb;62(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.010.</citation>
    <PMID>14762747</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Choi BH, Yoo JH. Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999 Sep;88(3):292-6. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70030-2.</citation>
    <PMID>10503856</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Salgarelli AC, Anesi A, Bellini P, Pollastri G, Tanza D, Barberini S, Chiarini L. How to improve retromandibular transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures: our clinical experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;42(4):464-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.12.012. Epub 2013 Feb 8.</citation>
    <PMID>23395651</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Jensen T, Jensen J, Norholt SE, Dahl M, Lenk-Hansen L, Svensson P. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures by an intraoral approach: a long-term follow-up study of 15 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1771-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.069.</citation>
    <PMID>17113444</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Schmidseder R, Scheunemann H. Nerve injury in fractures of the condylar neck. J Maxillofac Surg. 1977 Sep;5(3):186-90. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0503(77)80103-3.</citation>
    <PMID>269890</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Weinberg S, Kryshtalskyj B. Facial nerve function following temporomandibular joint surgery using the preauricular approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Oct;50(10):1048-51. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90488-l.</citation>
    <PMID>1527657</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Handschel J, Ruggeberg T, Depprich R, Schwarz F, Meyer U, Kubler NR, Naujoks C. Comparison of various approaches for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):e397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.02.012. Epub 2012 Mar 21.</citation>
    <PMID>22440318</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <verification_date>July 2022</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>December 24, 2018</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>January 11, 2019</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Actual">January 14, 2019</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>July 29, 2022</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>July 29, 2022</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">August 2, 2022</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
    <investigator_affiliation>Cairo University</investigator_affiliation>
    <investigator_full_name>Hani Taher Hibatullah Ali</investigator_full_name>
    <investigator_title>Principle Investigator</investigator_title>
  </responsible_party>
  <condition_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Facial Nerve Injuries</mesh_term>
    <mesh_term>Fractures, Open</mesh_term>
  </condition_browse>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>Undecided</sharing_ipd>
    <ipd_description>Once I finished the study I will share the data</ipd_description>
  </patient_data>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03803150
org study id: TMAP in subcondylar fracture
nct id: NCT03803150
lead sponsor: 
has dmc: Yes
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to
      fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular
      fractures. Though remained controversial for a long time, surgical treatment of displaced
      subcondylar fractures appears today as the gold standard.

      Although there is a developing preference for open reduction and internal fixation of
      mandibular condylar fractures, the optimal approach to the ramus condylar unit remains
      controversial. Various approaches have been proposed, and each has specific shortcomings and
      disadvantages. Retromandibular, submandibular, transoral, and through parotid approaches are
      generally performed and sometimes used with an endoscope. Limited access and injury to the
      facial nerve are the most common problems, while Wilson introduced a new through masseter
      anteroparotid approach, this technique offers excellent access to the ramus condylar unit,
      and facial nerve damage risk is reduced.
Fractures of the mandibular condylar process have been documented to be one of the most
      common occurring mandibular fractures.

      When open treatment is selected, several surgical approaches can be used to expose, reduce,
      and stabilize the fracture site, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
      Surgical approaches to the fractured mandibular condyle are broadly classified into intraoral
      and extraoral approaches. Intraoral approaches can be performed with or without endoscopic
      assistance. The most common extraoral approaches are submandibular, Risdon, preauricular,
      retroauricular, and retromandibular through parotid or through masseter approaches.

      An intraoral approach is time consuming and requires special instruments such as an
      endoscope, and additional training. Furthermore, cases of high fractures and/or medially
      displaced condylar fractures are technically difficult to manage through an intraoral
      approach, incorrect anatomical reduction, condylar head resorption, myofascial pain, and
      malocclusions have been reported to be more common complications following the intraoral
      approach when compared to extraoral approaches.

      In contrast, extraoral approaches are commonly used because they produce better visualization
      of the fracture site and therefore facilitate fracture reduction and fixation. However,
      extraoral approaches are complicated by the risk of injury to the facial, great auricular,
      and auriculotemporal nerves, visible scars, sialoceles, Frey syndrome and salivary fistulas.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
intervention model description: Block, consecutive, 1:1 Consecutive because patients with subcondylar fracture need immediate surgical intervention, that is why investigators can not wait to collect the whole sample size and make computer generated randomization .
primary purpose: Prevention
masking: None (Open Label)
masking description: Senior supervisor Prof. Dr. Hairy El mossy will generate the allocation sequence.
measure: Minimize facial nerve injury
time frame: Concerning the facial injury will be at 6 months
description: Regarding facial nerve injury the measuring device is House- brachmann facial nerve grading system (HBFNGS) while the measuring unit is numerical from (I-VI) I= Normal, II= Mild dysfunction, III= Moderate dysfunction, IV= Moderately severe dysfunction, V= Severe dysfunction, VI= Total paralysis.
I= Better while VI= Worse
measure: Minimize salivary fistula
time frame: Salivary fistula at 1 week
description: Regarding salivary fistula the measuring device is clinical examination while the measuring unit is binary question.
measure: Reduce scar formation
time frame: at 6 months
description: The character of any observed scar was scored as (1) no perceptible scar, (2) visible but thin and linear scar, (3) wide scar, and (4) hypertrophic scar or keloid. while the measuring unit is numerical from (1-4)
1= Better while 4= Worse
arm group label: PRA approach
arm group type: Experimental
description: PRA extends downward in curvilinear fashion in cervicomastoid skin crease
arm group label: RT approach
arm group type: Active Comparator
description: RT begins 5mm below the ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly.
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: PRA approach
description: A preauricular incision will be made that extends downwards in a curvilinear fashion in the cervicomastoid skin crease, though any variation in this incision will suffice. The great auricular nerve will be preserved and the flap raised in the subdermal fat plane, superficial to the superficial musculoaponeurotic layer to allow access to the masseter adjacent to the anteroinferior edge of the parotid gland, just below the parotid duct. Branches of the facial nerve will be readily identified and avoided with or without loupe magnification, on the surface of the masseter muscle.
arm group label: PRA approach
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: RT approach
description: The incision for the retromandibular approach begins 5mm below ear lobe and continues 3 to 3.5cm inferiorly. Initial incision begins through skin and subcutaneous tissues,platysma muscle ,(SMAS), parotid capsule Dissection is continued until the only tissue remaining on the posterior border of the mandible will be the periosteum of pterygomassetric sling,then the fracture site will exposed and reduced.
arm group label: RT approach
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
facility: 
country: Egypt
citation: Tang W, Gao C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L, Tian W. Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Mar;67(3):552-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066.
PMID: 19231779
citation: Lutz JC, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, Wilk A, Kahn JL. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Dec;32(10):963-9. doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0663-z. Epub 2010 May 12.
PMID: 20461515
citation: Guerrissi JO. A transparotid transcutaneous approach for internal rigid fixation in condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2002 Jul;13(4):568-71. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200207000-00018.
PMID: 12140424
citation: Ozkan HS, Sahin B, Gorgu M, Melikoglu C. Results of transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Nov;21(6):1882-3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4aef7.
PMID: 21119445
citation: Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Feb;43(1):57-60. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.09.011.
PMID: 15620776
citation: Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1990 Aug;18(6):251-4. doi: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80425-1.
PMID: 2212022
citation: Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, Gonzalez C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb;62(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.010.
PMID: 14762747
citation: Choi BH, Yoo JH. Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999 Sep;88(3):292-6. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70030-2.
PMID: 10503856
citation: Salgarelli AC, Anesi A, Bellini P, Pollastri G, Tanza D, Barberini S, Chiarini L. How to improve retromandibular transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures: our clinical experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;42(4):464-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.12.012. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
PMID: 23395651
citation: Jensen T, Jensen J, Norholt SE, Dahl M, Lenk-Hansen L, Svensson P. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures by an intraoral approach: a long-term follow-up study of 15 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1771-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.069.
PMID: 17113444
citation: Schmidseder R, Scheunemann H. Nerve injury in fractures of the condylar neck. J Maxillofac Surg. 1977 Sep;5(3):186-90. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0503(77)80103-3.
PMID: 269890
citation: Weinberg S, Kryshtalskyj B. Facial nerve function following temporomandibular joint surgery using the preauricular approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Oct;50(10):1048-51. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90488-l.
PMID: 1527657
citation: Handschel J, Ruggeberg T, Depprich R, Schwarz F, Meyer U, Kubler NR, Naujoks C. Comparison of various approaches for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):e397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.02.012. Epub 2012 Mar 21.
PMID: 22440318
responsible party type: Principal Investigator
investigator affiliation: Cairo University
investigator full name: Hani Taher Hibatullah Ali
investigator title: Principle Investigator
mesh term: Facial Nerve Injuries
mesh term: Fractures, Open
sharing ipd: Undecided
ipd description: Once I finished the study I will share the data