Management of Panfacial Trauma: Sequencing and Pitfalls

What Is the Relationship Between Maxillofacial Injury Location and Associated Injuries?

BACKGROUND

Patients sustaining maxillofacial fractures are at risk for associated injuries (AIs) to other body regions. The incidence of AIs is reported to be from 20 to 35%. AIs may be life-threatening and play a key role in considering first-line management at the emergency department, as well as planning the definitive treatment of maxillofacial fractures.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to determine the frequency and risk factors for AIs in patients with maxillofacial fractures.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

The investigators designed and implemented a retrospective cohort study of patients with facial fractures treated at Central Hospital (Lahti, Finland) from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2019. All adult patients with verified maxillofacial fractures were included. Patients under 18 years of age were excluded from the study.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The predictor variable was the location of the maxillofacial fractures grouped into three categories: mandible alone, midface alone, and both midface and mandible.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S)

The primary outcome variable was associated body region injuries coded as present or absent. The secondary outcome variable was the location of the AI categorized as skull, neck, thorax, pelvis, or extremity injuries.

COVARIATES

Other study variables included demographic data (age, sex, alcohol use), Glasgow Coma Scale, and etiology (fall, traffic- and bicycle accident, assault, pedestrian hit by motor vehicle, work-related, or sports/free-time injuries).

ANALYSES

Continuous variables were analyzed for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilks test and compared with categorical variables using the Mann-Whitney test. The univariate analyses of categorical variables were analyzed by the χ2 test (P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant).

RESULTS

During the study period, 443 adult (≥18) patients had maxillofacial fractures. AIs were present in 88 subjects (20%). The mean age was 47.6 years (range 18-91); 52 years with AIs (range 19-91), and 47 years (range 18-92) without AIs (P = .03). Subjects with midface and mandible + midface fractures had greater risk to AIs compared to mandibular fractures (relative risk 2.0, P = .002, relative risk 2.8, P = .009).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Every fifth maxillofacial trauma patient had an associated injury. Trauma patients should be evaluated in institutions with trauma protocols and imaging modalities before determining and executing the treatment plan for maxillofacial fractures.

Risk of complications in panfacial bone fracture according to surgeons: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Panfacial bone fractures pose intricate challenges because of severe fragmentation and the loss of landmarks. Surgeons use a variety of reduction techniques, including bottom-up and top-down approaches. This single proportional meta-analysis explores sequencing differences and complications between oral and maxillofacial surgery surgeons (OMSs) and plastic and reconstructive surgeons (PRSs) in treating panfacial bone fractures.

METHODS

The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched systematically, and we compiled 14 studies published between 2007 and 2023 involving 1238 patients. A systematic review of the included studies was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and data on the reduction techniques; total complication rates; and rates of malocclusion, enophthalmos, infection, asymmetry, and esthetic complications were collected.

RESULTS

The bottom-up technique was the most prevalent for both types of surgeons (57.1%, 8 out of 14). Malocclusion rates (I2 = 0% for OMSs and 41% for PRSs) were similar between the groups (p = 0.72), but PRSs tended to have a lower enophthalmos rate (I2 = 0% for OMSs and 32% for PRSs) than OMSs (p < 0.01). Infection rates remained consistent across all studies. However, high heterogeneity was observed for the total complication rate (I2 = 94% for OMSs and 85% for PRSs) and asymmetry and esthetic complications (I2 = 88% for OMSs and 92% for PRSs), making direct comparison between the two groups inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the differences in surgical techniques and levels of interest have a greater impact on the outcomes of the panfacial bone fracture than the surgeon's specialty. However, more in-depth studies are needed to accurately pinpoint panfacial bone fracture reduction trends and differences in postoperative complications in the two expert groups.

Pediatric Panfacial Fractures

Pediatric panfacial trauma is a rare occurrence with poorly understood implications for the growing child. Treatment algorithms largely mirror adult panfacial protocols with notable exceptions including augmented healing and remodeling capacities that favor nonoperative management, limited exposure to avoid disruption of osseous suture and synchondroses growth centers, and creative fracture fixation techniques in the setting of an immature craniomaxillofacial skeleton. The following article provides a review of our institutional philosophy in the management of these challenges injuries with important anatomic, epidemiologic, examination, sequencing, and postoperative considerations.

Reducing Systemic Risks in a Traumatic Panfacial Injury Patient

Panfacial trauma refers to injuries caused by high-energy mechanisms to two or more regions of the craniofacial skeleton, including the frontal bone, the midface, and the occlusal unit. As with any trauma, Advanced Trauma Life Support protocols should be followed in unstable patients. For the patient with panfacial traumatic injury, advanced perioperative care or critical care is frequently required. This article describes surgical critical care for panfacial injuries, a component of the acute-care surgery model, to reduce systemic risks, improve the patient's condition, and enable a successful surgical outcome.

Domestic Cow-Related Severe Facial Trauma in an Older Farmer Undergoing Anticoagulation Treatment

Domestic cow-related injuries can carry significant morbidity and mortality among livestock farmers. We report a case of an 83-year-old male farmer with severe facial trauma and a potentially compromised airway caused by a domestic dairy cow during his routine work while taking oral anticoagulants. Since head and neck trauma caused by domestic cows can be severe, preventive measures should be taken to protect cattle farmers in those exposed areas.

Repairing Facial Fractures with Interrupted Maxillary-mandibular Arches by Computer-assisted Reverse Planning Model Surgery

Background:

Management of comminuted facial fractures with maxillary-mandibular arch interruption is difficult, resulting in inadequate bone reduction and malocclusion. Traditionally, a good quality dental splint is helpful, but difficult to obtain in acute trauma. We apply a computer-assisted design and three-dimensional printing technology to improve splint fabrication and utilization, thus facilitating restoration of dental occlusion and facial fracture.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed patients who suffered from facial fractures with interruption of the maxillary-mandibular arches. We developed the “computer-assisted reverse planning and three-dimensional printing model surgery” algorithm and applied it in selected patients. An occlusal splint was created as a surgical guide to enhance the maxilla-mandibular unit repair by taking care of the bone reduction and occlusion. All included patients were followed up to assess the functional outcome and patients suitable for this method.

Results:

From Jan 2015 to Aug 2020, 10 patients (eight men and two women) with comminuted facial fractures were included. The average time of surgery was 9.2 days. The average follow-up time was 8.6 months. There was no patient who needed major revision to correct malocclusion or facial asymmetry.

Conclusions:

A computer-assisted design splint decreases intraoperative inaccuracies and difficulty in comminuted maxillo-mandibular fractures. It is a useful and reliable alternative. Collaboration with an experienced engineer and patient selection are indispensable in delivering successful outcomes. Patients who have more than three bone fragments in a single dental arch or more than four bone fragments in the entire maxillary-mandibular unit appear to be excellent candidates for this method.