Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Facial fractures and associated injuries in high- versus low-energy trauma: all are not created equal

Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2020³â 42±Ç 1È£ p.22 ~ 22
Hilaire Cameron St., Johnson Arianne, Loseth Caitlin, Alipour Hamid, Faunce Nick, Kaminski Stephen, Sharma Rohit,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
 ( Hilaire Cameron St. ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Johnson Arianne ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Loseth Caitlin ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Alipour Hamid ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Faunce Nick ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Kaminski Stephen ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
 ( Sharma Rohit ) - Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital

Abstract


Introduction: Facial fractures (FFs) occur after high- and low-energy trauma; differences in associated injuries and outcomes have not been well articulated.

Objective: To compare the epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients suffering FFs from high-energy and low-energy mechanisms.

Methods: We conducted a 6-year retrospective local trauma registry analysis of adults aged 18?55 years old that suffered a FF treated at the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Fracture patterns, concomitant injuries, procedures, and outcomes were compared between patients that suffered a high-energy mechanism (HEM: motor vehicle crash, bicycle crash, auto versus pedestrian, falls from height > 20 feet) and those that suffered a low-energy mechanism (LEM: assault, ground-level falls) of injury.

Results: FFs occurred in 123 patients, 25 from an HEM and 98 from an LEM. Rates of Le Fort (HEM 12% vs. LEM 3%, P = 0.10), mandible (HEM 20% vs. LEM 38%, P = 0.11), midface (HEM 84% vs. LEM 67%, P = 0.14), and upper face (HEM 24% vs. LEM 13%, P = 0.217) fractures did not significantly differ between the HEM and LEM groups, nor did facial operative rates (HEM 28% vs. LEM 40%, P = 0.36). FFs after an HEM event were associated with increased Injury Severity Scores (HEM 16.8 vs. LEM 7.5, P <0.001), ICU admittance (HEM 60% vs. LEM 13.3%, P <0.001), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (HEM 52% vs. LEM 15%, P <0.001), cervical spine fractures (HEM 12% vs. LEM 0%, P = 0.008), truncal/lower extremity injuries (HEM 60% vs. LEM 6%, P <0.001), neurosurgical procedures for the management of ICH (HEM 54% vs. LEM 36%, P = 0.003), and decreased Glasgow Coma Score on arrival (HEM 11.7 vs. LEM 14.2, P <0.001).

Conclusion: FFs after HEM events were associated with severe and multifocal injuries. FFs after LEM events were associated with ICH, concussions, and cervical spine fractures. Mechanism-based screening strategies will allow for the appropriate detection and management of injuries that occur concomitant to FFs.

Å°¿öµå

Facial fractures; High-energy mechanisms; Low-energy mechanisms; Outcomes

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed