Return-to-play guidelines following facial fractures

Fowell, C.; Earl, P.D.

doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091697

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…51 The ability to resume activity is a common concern among sports practitioners, but amateurs must be distin- football and rugby players that allowed the resumption of sporting activity after only 3 weeks. 52,53 Nevertheless, for sports-related injuries of all types, including maxillofacial fractures, recovery depends on the anatomical site and the type of sport. As noted by Fardy, 51 "our Hippocratic oath is to do the best for the player not for the coach, and particularly not for ourselves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive analyses of maxillofacial fractures due to non‐professional sports activities in Italy

Bojino

Roccia²,

Giaccone

et al. 2020

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: Sports activities have become increasingly popular among amateurs and this has led to an increase in maxillofacial fractures. The aim of this study was to investigate the management of amateur sport-related maxillofacial fractures and appropriate preventive measures. Methods: A trauma database was used to analyze 3231 patients with maxillofacial fractures admitted to the Maxillofacial Surgery Division of Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy, from January 2001 to December 2019. Only patients with non-professional sports-related maxillofacial fractures were included. The following data were collected: age, gender, type of sport, mechanisms of injury, sites of fracture, Facial Injury Severity Scale, associated injuries, month of trauma, time to treatment, treatment, length of stay, and interval before return to sport. Results: There were 432 patients, 378 males and 54 females, with a mean age of 29.2 (5-76 years). Sport-related maxillofacial fractures' relative percent ranged from 11.1% in 2001 to 17.5% in 2019. Soccer was the most common cause of sport-related maxillofacial fractures (54.2%), and impact with a player/opponent was the main mechanism of injury (72%). An intentional violent act (player hit by a fist) was the cause of fracture in 8.5% of the soccer-related injuries. Fractures of the middle third of the face occurred in 61.2% of patients. Maxillofacial fractures were treated within 24 h in 25% of patients. There were 343 out of 412 patients who received open reduction and internal fixation (mean length of hospital stay: 3.7 days). There was no contraindication to resuming sport activities at 30/40 days after treatment, except for combat sports. Conclusions: This study provided further evidence of a relative increase in sportsrelated maxillofacial fractures. Soccer is related to the majority of sport maxillofacial fractures. Adherence to the rules is necessary to limit violent acts that cause such injuries. In non-professional players, resumption of the full activity is allowed after 40 days for non-combat sports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive analyses of maxillofacial fractures due to non‐professional sports activities in Italy

Bojino

Roccia²,

Giaccone

et al. 2020

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, certain operative approaches were associated with longer recovery times, sometimes greater than the 3-week recovery period, due to the complexity of repair. 25 Therefore, further investigation regarding an evidence-based approach to treatment is needed. Additionally, further research may be necessary to examine rates of injury with current safety equipment versus a control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Court: A Comprehensive Analysis of Basketball Facial Trauma

Othman

Cohn

McKinnon

2019

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With basketball gradually becoming increasingly popular across the United States, it is necessary for health care providers to understand injuries associated with the sport. We aim to determine the incidence of basketball-related facial injuries and further describe their patterns with regard to age, mechanism of injury, and degree of injury. An analysis of emergency department visits under the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System was conducted from 2015 through 2017. Chi-squared testing (χ2) was performed to compare categorical variables. After a review of results, a total of 4,578 patients were included for analysis spanning a 3-year time period (2015-2017). Lacerations were the most common injury overall (57.9%). Nasal fractures were by far the most common fracture (76.1%), and elbows to the face and collisions with other players were the most common types of injury mechanisms (31 and 28.7%, respectively). Adolescents (aged 12-18 years) were the most frequently injured group (42.5%), although young adults (aged 19-34 years) were also frequently affected (30.1%). Basketball facial trauma remains a prominent issue. Our research, in correlation with previous research, shows that current precautions to injury are not widely observed or are ineffective to the extent of need for further reform. It thus becomes necessary to provide patient education and develop more practical methods for decreasing player injury.

show abstract

“…Reflected in the quality scores, two consensus statements scored the lowest scores, three and four respectively. 20,37 The third consensus statement 15 employed a Delphi consensus technique, based on experts' opinion and incorporated a systematic evaluation of the underlying evidence base prior to obtaining expert opinions and thus received a moderate score.…”

Section: Clinics In Sports Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, unlike a clinical guideline, a consensus statement does not provide evidence of rigorous, high quality, transparent and independent evaluation of the evidence, nor does it link the hierarchy and quality of underlying evidence to each of its recommendations. This review identified three 15,20,37 consensus statements that were titled as clinical guidelines and one clinical guideline that was additionally titled as a consensus statement. 26 As defined and discussed above, the methodology and evidence base underpinning each recommendation behind clinical guidelines and consensus statements differs greatly.…”

Section: What's In a Namementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical guidelines in sports medicine: Am I reading a guideline or a consensus statement: What's the difference? Does it matter?

Machotka

Perraton

Grimmer

2014

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The integration of research evidence into clinical practice is one of the most challenging aspects of sports medicine. The time required to search library databases and read multiple systematic reviews represents a significant barrier to many clinicians. Clinical guidelines and consensus statements provide a summary of best practice for clinical conditions, and provide clinical recommendations. In sports medicine, the terms clinical guideline and consensus statement are often used interchangeably; however, important differences exist between these resources. The aims of this review were to quantify the number of clinical guidelines published in sports medicine journals over the last five years, and assess their methodological quality.Methods: In March 2014, the top ten sports medicine journals based on current impact factors were searched using the single keyword 'guideline'. Peer-reviewed papers providing clinical recommendations that were described by the authors as a guideline were included. The International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE) guideline checklist, which consists of fourteen 'yes' and 'no' responses, graded 1 or 0 respectively, was used to assess the methodological quality of each clinical guideline.Results: Seven guidelines were retained from a pool of 34 potentially relevant publications. The excluded publications were experimental studies (n = 14), expert commentaries or editorials (n = 5), literature reviews (n = 4) or conference proceedings (n = 4). Five of the excluded publications were titled as clinical guidelines. The iCAHE guideline checklist scores ranged from 6 to 11. Within the seven included guidelines, the most frequently identified methodological problems were a failure to describe the strategy used to search for evidence, failure to critically appraise the quality of underlying evidence and failure to clearly link the hierarchy and quality of underlying evidence to each recommendation.Discussion: A limited number of clinical guidelines are available in the field of sports medicine. Existing clinical guidelines should be interpreted with caution because of methodological problems that were identified by this review. Consensus statements are useful resources for busy sports medicine clinicians; however, these resources should be subjected to the same rigorous appraisal as clinical guidelines, in order to identify areas where bias may potentially limit the usefulness of the recommendations.

show abstract

Return-to-play guidelines following facial fractures

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Comprehensive analyses of maxillofacial fractures due to non‐professional sports activities in Italy

Comprehensive analyses of maxillofacial fractures due to non‐professional sports activities in Italy

On the Court: A Comprehensive Analysis of Basketball Facial Trauma

Clinical guidelines in sports medicine: Am I reading a guideline or a consensus statement: What's the difference? Does it matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About