This study analyzed 56 cases of chronic closed lock of the TMJ treated with arthroscopy. Intraoperative findings included fibrillation in 76% of cases, synovitis and hypermia in 54%, and adhesions in 38%. Post-operatively, mean maximum mouth opening improved by 9.8mm and pain scores decreased by 4.7 points. 84% of patients reported good or excellent improvement, while 16.7% saw no change. The study concludes that TMJ arthroscopy is an effective treatment for chronic closed lock, but open surgery may be preferable for severe joint disease.
2. Introduction
• Sophisticated small joint arthroscopy has
revolutionised the management of certain
TMJ disorders that were treated with open
surgery in the past
www.indiandentalacademy.com
3. Introduction
• First introduced by Ohnishi in 1975
• It took 10 years before the Americans &
Europeans took interest in the idea of
small joint arthroscopy
www.indiandentalacademy.com
4. Indications
• During the 1990’s there was a boom in
keyhole surgery which affected almost all
surgical disciplines
• Keyhole surgery was used to treat almost
all conceivable disorders
www.indiandentalacademy.com
6. Indications
• Likewise, TMJ operative arthroscopy
peaked in the early 1990’s and gradually
fell out of favour because;
– The procedure took 3-4x as long as
conventional surgery
– Few surgeons were prepared to invest time
and energy to learn a skill that was highly
technical but never proven to be superior to
conventional treatment
www.indiandentalacademy.com
23. Typical Case
• 23 yo female
• 4 mn history of closed lock
• Mouth opening 27mm
• Md deviation to left side
www.indiandentalacademy.com
24. Typical Case
• Pain in left TMJ
• No response to physiotherapy
• Cannot wear splint – limited mouth
opening
• MRI – Right TMJ non-reducing disc
displacement
www.indiandentalacademy.com
26. Typical Case
Left TMJ arthroscopy
followed by physiotherapy 10 days later
At 6 weeks follow-up
- mouth opening from 27mm to 40mm
- pain reduced from 7/10 to 2/10
www.indiandentalacademy.com
29. TMJ ARTHROSCOPY
Aim
• To analyse the findings andTo analyse the findings and
outcomes of 56 consecutiveoutcomes of 56 consecutive
cases of chronic closed lockcases of chronic closed lock
treated with TMJ arthroscopytreated with TMJ arthroscopy
www.indiandentalacademy.com
30. Materials & Methods
• 3 year prospective study 1996-19993 year prospective study 1996-1999
– 60 joints (4 bilateral) in 56 consecutive60 joints (4 bilateral) in 56 consecutive
patientspatients
– TMJ arthroscopic lavage & lysis under GATMJ arthroscopic lavage & lysis under GA
– private practice settingprivate practice setting
www.indiandentalacademy.com
31. Materials & Methods
• Inclusion CriteriaInclusion Criteria
– Closed lock <32mm mouth openingClosed lock <32mm mouth opening
– Closed lock >6 weeksClosed lock >6 weeks
– Failure to respond to physiotherapy andFailure to respond to physiotherapy and
medicationmedication
– Occlusal splint could not be fitted becauseOcclusal splint could not be fitted because
impressions could not be taken with theimpressions could not be taken with the
limited mouth openinglimited mouth opening
www.indiandentalacademy.com
38. Results - Mandibular function
• Pre-op mean MMO = 25.5mmPre-op mean MMO = 25.5mm ++ 5.4mm5.4mm
• Post -op mean MMO = 35.3mmPost -op mean MMO = 35.3mm ++ 6.1mm6.1mm
Mean improvement of MMO 6wks postMean improvement of MMO 6wks post
TMJ arthroscopy =TMJ arthroscopy = 9.8mm9.8mm + 0.7mm+ 0.7mm
www.indiandentalacademy.com
39. Results - Pain scores (1-10)
• Pre-op mean pain score = 7.1Pre-op mean pain score = 7.1 ++ 1.91.9
• Post -op mean pain score = 2.4Post -op mean pain score = 2.4 ++ 1.01.0
Mean improvement of pain score 6wksMean improvement of pain score 6wks
postpost
TMJ arthroscopy =TMJ arthroscopy = - 4.7- 4.7 + 0.9+ 0.9
www.indiandentalacademy.com
40. Results - Subjective
assessment (6wk)
• 9 patients (16.7%) - no change9 patients (16.7%) - no change
• 10 patients (18.5%) - mild improvement10 patients (18.5%) - mild improvement
• 21 patients (38.9%) - good improvement21 patients (38.9%) - good improvement
• 14 patients (25.9%) - excellent14 patients (25.9%) - excellent
improvementimprovement
• 2 patients - no data available2 patients - no data available
www.indiandentalacademy.com
41. Results - failures (6wk)
• 9 out of 54 patients (16.7%) reported no9 out of 54 patients (16.7%) reported no
subjectivesubjective benefit from TMJ arthroscopy.benefit from TMJ arthroscopy.
www.indiandentalacademy.com
42. Discussion
• Limitations of this studyLimitations of this study
– Lack of matched controlsLack of matched controls
– Influence of other treatment modalitiesInfluence of other treatment modalities
– No randomised selection processNo randomised selection process
– No blind assessmentNo blind assessment
www.indiandentalacademy.com
43. Discussion
• Strengths of the StudyStrengths of the Study
– Prospective collection of dataProspective collection of data
– Consecutive patientsConsecutive patients
– Standard inclusion criteria ie. MMO <32mmStandard inclusion criteria ie. MMO <32mm
– Standard arthroscopic techniqueStandard arthroscopic technique
– Single operatorSingle operator
www.indiandentalacademy.com
44. Discussion
• Short follow-up (6 weeks) becauseShort follow-up (6 weeks) because
– No structural changes to TMJ with lavageNo structural changes to TMJ with lavage
& lysis procedure& lysis procedure
– Influence of other treatment modalitiesInfluence of other treatment modalities
following arthroscopyfollowing arthroscopy
– Time is a great healerTime is a great healer (Sato et al 1997)(Sato et al 1997)
www.indiandentalacademy.com
45. Discussion
• Murakami et al (1995) compared theMurakami et al (1995) compared the
short-term outcomes of 3 techniquesshort-term outcomes of 3 techniques
for management of closed lock andfor management of closed lock and
found;found;
– Conservative - 56% success rateConservative - 56% success rate
– Arthocentesis - 70% success rateArthocentesis - 70% success rate
– Arthroscopy - 91% success rateArthroscopy - 91% success rate
– (Present study - 84% success rate)(Present study - 84% success rate)
www.indiandentalacademy.com
46. Discussion
• Israel (1999) reviewed the outcomes ofIsrael (1999) reviewed the outcomes of
11 studies of TMJ arthroscopy11 studies of TMJ arthroscopy
outcomes published btw 1987 andoutcomes published btw 1987 and
1996.1996.
• The results are strikingly similar toThe results are strikingly similar to
present study -present study - see next slidesee next slide
www.indiandentalacademy.com
47. Comparative Studies
• Israel (1999)Israel (1999)
– 6,071 joints6,071 joints
– 3,955 patients3,955 patients
– 84% mean success84% mean success
raterate
– 10.4mm increased10.4mm increased
MMOMMO
– 4.6 units decreased4.6 units decreased
pain levelspain levels
• Present StudyPresent Study
– 60 joints60 joints
– 56 patients56 patients
– 84% success84% success
– 9.8mm increased9.8mm increased
MMOMMO
– 4.7 units decreased4.7 units decreased
pain levelspain levels
www.indiandentalacademy.com
48. Adhesions
• Rosenberg & Goss (1999) - 124 jointsRosenberg & Goss (1999) - 124 joints
with internal derangement and foundwith internal derangement and found
adhesions in 38%.adhesions in 38%.
• Present study - adhesions also foundPresent study - adhesions also found
in 38% of joints.in 38% of joints.
• Adhesions play only a minor role inAdhesions play only a minor role in
chronic closed lock. Other factors mustchronic closed lock. Other factors must
be involved.be involved.
www.indiandentalacademy.com
49. Osteoathrosis (OA) vs.
Internal Derangement (ID)
• Holmund et al (1994) looked at theHolmund et al (1994) looked at the
management of osteoarthosis with TMJmanagement of osteoarthosis with TMJ
arthroscopy which yielded a 50%arthroscopy which yielded a 50%
successsuccess
• Present study treated mainly internalPresent study treated mainly internal
derangement with an 84% success rate.derangement with an 84% success rate.
• Therefore arthroscopic lavage & lysisTherefore arthroscopic lavage & lysis
more effective for ID than OA.more effective for ID than OA.
www.indiandentalacademy.com
50. Study Findings
• TMJ arthroscopic lavage & lysis is aTMJ arthroscopic lavage & lysis is a
useful and effective treatment foruseful and effective treatment for
TMJ chronic closed lock.TMJ chronic closed lock.
www.indiandentalacademy.com
51. Discussion
• The superiority of operative arthroscopy
over simple lavage and lysis has never
been proven
• Severe joint disease is best treated by
open surgery
www.indiandentalacademy.com
52. Conclusion
• TMJ arthroscopy is an essential part of a
Surgeon’s tool box
• Very useful for early stage TMJ internal
derangement which results in locking and
pain
www.indiandentalacademy.com