Football-related maxillofacial injuries

Gallagher, Nicola; Collyer, Jeremy; Shelley, Mike; Sneddon, K.; Bowe, C.M.

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.10.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[167] According to this study there were 0 % of Pan-facial injuries and head injuries which is similar to united kingdom study. [168] This is mostly occur due to low impact mechanism of injury especially in football and this low impact lead to high incidence of infraorbital fracture than orbital rim fracture because orbital floor is weaker than orbital rim. [169] Work related injuries were another cause of maxillofacial injuries.…”

Section: Etiology and Pattern Of Maxillofacial Traumamentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence, pattern, etiology of facial fractures among two referral centers (retrospective cross-sectional study)

Barsoum,

Abd El-Wahed,

Nabil Helmi

2024

OMX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial injuries are considered as a part of injuries in human body [1] . Facial injury defined as injury of face including major and minor injuries of the soft tissue , bone , blood vessels and nerves . [1,2] Maxillofacial injuries following trauma to head and neck region could lead to medical emergencies as blood loss and airway obstruction . [1][2][3] Maxillofacial injuries constitute one of the major health problems worldwide. [4] Each year about 5.8 million people globally die from trauma or may be disabled. It's predicted to become one of the top 20 causes leading to death worldwide by 2030. For people under 44 years of age, trauma is already among the top three causes of death. [5] Maxillofacial injuries may result in loss of function , disfigurement , psychological problems to the extent of disability and death. [6] In addition to facial bones , soft tissue injuries of head and neck and dentoalveolar fractures , maxillofacial fractures can occur isolated or in combination with cranial , spinal , upper and lower body injuries . [7] Major or minor trauma can be assessed using injury severity score (ISS). [8] An ISS of ≥ 16 is the cutoff for major trauma, and this is calculated by summing up the scores of the three most severe injuries a patient sustains. Management of head and neck trauma is a complex procedure because it often requires input from a wide variety of surgical disciplines as maxillofacial surgery, plastic surgery and neurosurgery. [9,10] There are various causes of maxillofacial injuries, road traffic accident and interpersonal violence are the most common causes of maxillofacial injuries. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] It's followed by sports , occupational related injuries , falls , domestic accidents , terrorism and war. [18][19][20][21][22][23] The mandible is the most primary bone involved in maxillofacial fractures, condyle and para-symphysis are the most commonly affected sites in patients with mandibular fractures. [11] Risk factors of maxillofacial fractures including age, sex and etiology varies depending on geographical , social , cultural , traffic volume , preventive measures , economic and environmental factors. [24,25] Understanding incidence , etiology , pattern helps to evaluate the behavior patterns of people in various countries and different social cultures as well as establish proper prevention and treatment strategy. [26] The management of cranio-maxillofacial trauma include facial bone fractures , dentoalveolar fractures , soft tissue lacerations and associated injuries mainly of head and

show abstract

Section: Etiology and Pattern Of Maxillofacial Traumamentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence, pattern, etiology of facial fractures among two referral centers (retrospective cross-sectional study)

Barsoum,

Abd El-Wahed,

Nabil Helmi

2024

OMX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost minimization analysis of indication-specific osteosynthesis material in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Franke

Weiland

Bučkova

et al. 2022

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Following the introduction of the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 by the European Parliament, any bioactive substance or surgical implant introduced into the human body must be documented. The regulation requires any implant to be traced back to the manufacturer. Lot numbers need to be available for every single medical implant. Also, the manufacturer is required by law to provide implants individually packaged and sterilized. Previously, model tray systems (MOS tray) were used for osteosynthesis in oral and maxillofacial surgery, in which the individual implants could not be registered separately. The new regulation made it impossible to use such processes during surgery anymore and a need for a change in the medical practice surged. We examined a possible solution for the new legislation. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to analyze the MOS tray systems to osteosynthesis materials prepackaged in sets. We record and evaluate parameters such as surgical time and documentation time. We perform a short cost analysis of our clinic. The primary aim is to determine how much time is gained or lost by the mandatory increased patient safety. The secondary aim is to describe change in costs. Methods Patients that underwent standard surgical procedures in the clinic of oral and maxillofacial surgery of the faculty hospital Carl Gustav Carus in Dresden were included. We chose open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of anterior mandibular corpus fractures as well as mandibular advancement by means of bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) as standardized procedures. Both of these procedures require two osteosynthesis plates and at least four screws for each plate. MOS trays were compared to prepackaged sterilized sets. The sets include a drill bit, two plates, and eight 5-mm screws. A total number of 40 patients were examined. We allocated 20 patients to the ORIF group and the other 20 patients to the BSSO group. Each group was evenly subdivided into a MOS tray group and a prepackaged group. Parameters such as the incision-suture time (IST) as well as the documentation time (DT) by the operating room (OR) staff to complete documentation for the implants are the main focus of investigation. Results For open reduction, the incision-suture time was significantly different in favor of the MOS tray (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the BSSO groups. However, we observed a significantly different (p < 0.01) documentation time advantage for the prepackaged sets in both the ORIF and BSSO groups. On top of that, we find that by using the prepackaged kits, we are able to reduce sterilization costs by €11.53 per size-reduced container. Also, there is also a total cut of costs of €38.90 and €43.70, respectively, per standardized procedure for implant material. Conclusions By law, a change in the method of approaching surgery is necessary. For standardized procedures, the right choice of implants can lead to a reduction of documentation time and costs for implant material, sterilization, as well as utilizing less instruments. This in turn leads to lower costs for perioperative processing as well as provision of state-of-the-art implant quality implementing higher patient security.

show abstract

Football-related maxillofacial injuries

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

Incidence, pattern, etiology of facial fractures among two referral centers (retrospective cross-sectional study)

Incidence, pattern, etiology of facial fractures among two referral centers (retrospective cross-sectional study)

Cost minimization analysis of indication-specific osteosynthesis material in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About