Prospective comparison of arthroscopy and arthrocentesis for temporomandibular joint disorders. Improvement of pain and function after arthroscopy and arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: a comparative study.
A prospective, randomized study was undertaken to compare arthroscopy and arthrocentesis for treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders.
                Nineteen patients with clinical and radiographic documentation of internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint(s) unresponsive to nonsurgical therapy were randomized to one of two surgical groups: arthroscopic lysis and lavage under general anesthesia or arthrocentesis, hydraulic distention, and lavage under intravenous sedation. Objective data were collected; including interincisal opening, lateral excursions, occlusal evaluation, deviation on opening, and tenderness to palpation. A questionnaire in the form of visual analog scales relating to pain, joint noise, jaw mobility, and dietary alterations was completed by each patient at 1 week, and 1, 3, 4, 12, and 26 months postoperatively.
                There was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the two groups for any parameter evaluated. Categorization of a particular subject into a successful outcome was based on statistically significant improvement in maximum incisal opening and pain scores; the overall success rate was 82% for arthroscopy and 75% for arthrocentesis.
                Therapeutic success was not significantly different for arthroscopy and arthrocentesis; both surgical modalities are useful for decreasing patient reports of pain while increasing functional mobility of the mandible. In 1993 and 1994, 720 patients with pain in the temporo-mandibular joint area were examined and treated. The authors describe their therapeutic protocol. Sixty-two patients were not relieved by conservative nonsurgical therapy and were treated by arthroscopy or arthrocentesis. In both groups the differences in functional result and in pain control were analysed. Results show that both arthroscopy and lavage are useful in improving function and diminishing pain. Arthroscopy shows better results for functional treatment whereas arthrocentesis and arthroscopy show similar results in pain control.
There is insufficient, consistent evidence to either support or refute the use of arthrocentesis and lavage for treating patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. Further high quality RCTs of arthrocentesis need to be conducted before firm conclusions with regard to its effectiveness can be drawn.