Epidemiology of Maxillofacial Traumatisms in French Alps Metropole (Grenoble) Specificity for the mountain sports and evolution in the last 40 years

Which sports have a higher risk of maxillofacial injuries?

OBJECTIVES

Sports etiology is one of the most common causes of maxillofacial injuries. This work aimed to provide an up-to-date review of sports-related maxillofacial injuries.

METHODS

An updated review was conducted on Pubmed and Google Scholar. No publication year and language restrictions were applied. Two different search strategies were performed, the first addressed which sports, generally associated with maxillofacial injuries, and the second search was conducted to determine the frequency of maxillofacial injuries associated with each sport individually.

RESULTS

The first search returned 26 articles distributed across different sports, from different countries, and with varied age distribution. The second search displayed 85 articles on individual sports group. Papers were rated and categorized according by the sport associated to the reported injury. A useful sports risk scale for maxillofacial injuries has been developed. Peculiar themes from all participating sports were evaluated. The use of protective equipment and other preventive measures were highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Some sports with ball and cycling can be considered riskier sports for maxillofacial injuries. Athlete education and the mandatory use of mouthguards, helmets, and eye protection, among other things, are crucial to prevent these injuries. Tailor-made mouthguards and protective masks, which are becoming cheaper, are in vogue. The Sports-related Maxillofacial Injuries Risk scale can be useful for athletes, athletic coaches, and maxillofacial surgeons.

Risk Factors for Maxillary Sinus Pathology after Surgery for Midfacial Fracture: A Multivariate Analysis

This study aimed to determine the incidence of maxillary sinus pathology in patients with a midfacial fracture who underwent osteosynthesis surgery and evaluate the associated risk factors. We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis of patients with midfacial fractures involving a maxillary sinus wall who were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) between January 2015 and December 2020. Fracture reduction, the number of screws implanted in the maxillary sinus, and the number of screws penetrating the maxillary sinus, etc., were examined as potential risk factors. Maxillary sinus pathology on postoperative CT was considered the primary outcome for case-control analysis. Binary logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with postoperative maxillary sinus pathology. Thereafter, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to extract confounding factors. A total of 262 patients (totaling 372 maxillary sinuses) were included for analysis. PSM yielded 178, 246, and 70 matched sinuses, respectively, depending on the potential risk factors. Postoperative maxillary sinus pathology was visualized in 218 of the 372 maxillary sinuses (58.60%). The risk factors for postoperative maxillary sinus pathology included the number of screws penetrating the maxillary sinus (odds ratio (OR), 1.124; p = 0.007), an imperfect maxillary sinus wall fracture reduction (OR, 2.901; p = 0.021), and the number of sinus walls involved (OR, 1.383; p = 0.011). After PSM, postoperative maxillary sinus pathology was still more prevalent in sinuses with multiple maxillary sinus wall fractures (64.04% vs. 48.31%, p = 0.034), sinuses with more screws penetrating the maxillary sinus (64.23% vs. 50.41%, p = 0.028), and sinuses with an imperfect reduction (80% vs. 51.43%, p = 0.012). In conclusion, maxillary sinus pathology is common after the ORIF of midfacial fractures. Patients with a fracture of multiple maxillary sinus walls require a close follow-up. Screw penetration of the maxillary sinus should be avoided to prevent maxillary sinus pathology after a midfacial fracture ORIF.