Characteristics of pediatric maxillofacial fractures in Kuwait: A single‐center retrospective study

Abstract

Background Pediatric maxillofacial fractures always present a challenge due to the unique nature of the facial skeleton anatomy and development. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, etiology, site of fracture, and management modalities of pediatric maxillofacial fractures in Kuwait. Methods A retrospective cross‐sectional study was conducted. The records of all pediatric patients who were diagnosed with maxillofacial fractures and admitted to one of the major hospitals in Kuwait between January 2007 and March 2020 were reviewed. Results A total of 186 patients aged between 0 and 13 years old were included. An average of 13 patients was seen each year between 2007 and 2020. The leading cause of the pediatric maxillofacial trauma was road traffic accidents (RTA) that accounted for 38.2% of the patients followed by 22% falls from height (FFH). Male patients were more affected than females, with a ratio of 2.3:1. More than half of the children had mid‐face fractures, of which 57% were in multiple sites. Conservative management was the main approach for 52.2% of the patients. Conclusions Pediatric maxillofacial fractures were mainly attributed to road traffic accidents in Kuwait. Mid‐face bone fractures were reported more than mandibular fractures and were mostly managed conservatively.

Application Value of the CT Scan 3D Reconstruction Technique in Maxillofacial Fracture Patients

“…Possibly, it can compensate for the deficiency of MPR, the three-dimensional display of the anatomical structure, and fracture images of the maxillofacial region and thus providing a more intuitive and three-dimensional understanding of the relationship between the broken end and the spatial structure of the surrounding tissues [ 18 , 19 ]. Similarly, Alessa concluded that the detection rate of MPR plus VR was superior to that of axial CT (99.5% (209/210) vs 88.1% (185/210)), confirming that CT scan 3D reconstruction technology has a reliable value [ 20 ]. In addition, with the results of surgical anatomy as the gold standard, the sensitivity of MRP and VR for the diagnosis of maxillofacial fractures was 90.06% (163/170) and 95.56% (174/177), respectively, with no significant difference.…”

Characteristics and age‐related injury patterns of maxillofacial fractures in children and adolescents: A multicentric and prospective study

“…According to several authors, RTA is the main cause of oro‐maxillofacial fractures. 18 , 23 , 27 , 35 Patients suffering trauma from RTA had the highest median age among the causes of trauma, with 68% of all RTA‐related fractures in the adolescent group (Table 1 ). In addition, RTA was the main cause of maxillofacial paediatric fractures in all African and Asian centres, ranging from 42% to 69% (Table 2 ), in agreement with several studies.…”

“…In addition, characteristics of facial injuries in children and adolescents also vary among countries due to demographic, socioeconomic and environmental differences. Articles on the epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures in children and adolescents, which have often been monocentric and retrospective, have reported road traffic accidents (RTAs) as the most common cause in Africa, 11–13 Oceania 14,15 and America, 16–19 while falls were the most common in Europe 6,20,21 and Asia 22–25 …”

“…Articles on the epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures in children and adolescents, which have often been monocentric and retrospective, have reported road traffic accidents (RTAs) as the most common cause in Africa, 11 , 12 , 13 Oceania 14 , 15 and America, 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 while falls were the most common in Europe 6 , 20 , 21 and Asia. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 The aim of this epidemiological and prospective study was to analyse the characteristics of oro‐maxillofacial trauma in children and adolescent populations hospitalized in 14 worldwide oral–maxillofacial surgery departments in the World Oral Maxillofacial Trauma (WORMAT) project during a 1‐year period.…”

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

“…Midfacial fractures account for 45.4% to 79.1% of all facial fractures and can seriously affect patient appearance and function [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. The midfacial region is defined based on the resulting AO CMF classification system within anatomical regions: zygoma, upper central midface, intermediate central midface, lower central midface, frontal, parietal, sphenoidal, and temporal [ 6 ].…”