Risk Factors for Infection Following Operative Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

Stone, Ira E.; Dodson, Thomas B.; Bays, Robert A.

doi:10.1097/00006534-199301000-00008

Cited by 83 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This small difference was not statistically significant (P=0.56). These results have been demonstrated in previous studies (4,5,11,13,14).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Controversy exists in the management of patients with isolated mandible fractures in terms of timing to repair. Many authors advocate immediate repair with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and/or maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF), while others support lag time to repair to allow for a decrease in edema of the surrounding soft tissues (3,4). Regardless, complications from mandible fractures often develop, including infections, hardware exposure, nonunion and jaw pain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of outcomes between immediate and delayed repair of mandibular fractures

Webb¹,

Makhijani²,

Khanna³

et al. 2009

CAN J PLAST SURG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This small difference was not statistically significant (P=0.56). These results have been demonstrated in previous studies (4,5,11,13,14).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of outcomes between immediate and delayed repair of mandibular fractures

Webb¹,

Makhijani²,

Khanna³

et al. 2009

CAN J PLAST SURG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2 This is compatible with 6.3% risk of infection that was reported in a multivariate analysis of risk factors for plate removal in mandible fractures. 13 Most of the infections after trauma are mandibular and range from 0%-27%, and often these infections are the main reason for plate removal. 4,5,7,[13][14][15][16] In our study, we had a 3.1% infection rate, which accounts for every plate removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptomatic Plate Removal in Maxillofacial Trauma

Murthy

Lehman²

2005

Annals of Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviewed the fate of titanium plates used to correct maxillofacial trauma in 76 patients to define risk factors for plate removal. Medical records of 76 consecutive patients at a single institution, over a 10-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Variables included age, sex, trauma type, diagnosis, fracture type, fracture diagnosis, plate location, surgical approach, and reasons for plate removal. Fracture diagnosis was described as panfacial (42%), blowout (3%), midface (28%), zygoma (26%), mandible angle (6%), ramus (7%), and symphysis (9%). All plate removals according to fracture diagnosis were in the mandible angle (30%) and symphysis (20%). When plate location was reviewed, 68% of the plates were placed in the upper and midface and 32% were placed in the mandible. Specifically, plates were placed in the frontozygomatic suture (18%), zygomaticomaxillary suture (19%), infraorbital rim (14%) and mandible symphysis (15%), mandible angle (9%), piriform (6%), nasal (5%), mandible ramus (4%) and body (4%), zygoma (2%), and frontal (2%). Of 163 plates that were placed, 6 plates (3.7%) were removed. Three (12%) of the symphysis plates and 3 (20%) of the angle plates were removed. Among all variables, only fracture diagnosis (P = 0.01) and plate location (P = 0.01) were statistically significant in plate removal. Five plates were removed for abscess/infection; 1 plate was removed for osteomyelitis. Further review revealed that 4 out of 6 plates removed involved synchronous mandible fractures. Most infections after maxillofacial trauma occur in the mandible, and often these infections are the main reason for plate removal. More vigilance is needed in the treatment of mandible angle and symphyseal fractures, especially if there are synchronous fractures, to prevent infection, plate removal and subsequent malunion.

show abstract

“…1 Currently, arthroplasty infection rates range from 1%-5% 2,3 ; in trauma patients or at risk populations, the infection rate is further elevated. 4,5 Moreover, since 73% of revision arthroplasties may be due to cryptic bacterial infection, the actual infection rate may be even higher than those reported earlier. 6 In terms of patient numbers, 4.4 million people in the United States have received at least one internal fixation device, and 800,000 new hip arthroplasties are performed annually.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Vancomycin covalently bonded to titanium alloy prevents bacterial colonization

Antoci

King

Jose

et al. 2007

Journal Orthopaedic Research

150

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periprosthetic infection is a devastating consequence of implant insertion and can arise from hematogenous sources or surgical contamination. Microbes can preferentially colonize the implant surface and, by forming a biofilm, escape immune surveillance. We hypothesized that if an antibiotic can be tethered to a titanium alloy (Ti) surface, it will inhibit bacterial colonization, prevent biofilm formation, and avert late-stage infection. To test this hypothesis, a Ti rod was covalently derivatized with vancomycin. Reaction efficiencies were evaluated by colorimetric and spectrophotometric measurements. The vancomycin-modified surface was stable in aqueous solutions over extended time periods and maintained antibiotic coverage, even after pressfit insertion into a cadaverous rat femora. When evaluated using fluorescently labeled bacteria, or by direct colony counts, the surface-bound antibiotic prevented bacterial colonization in vitro after: (1) exposure to high levels of S. aureus; (2) extended incubation in physiological buffers; and (3) repeated bacterial challenges. Importantly, whereas the vancomycin-derivitized pins prevented bacterial colonization, S. aureus adhered to control pins, even in the presence of concentrations of vancomycin that exceeded the strain MIC. These results demonstrate that we have effectively engineered a stable, bactericidal Ti surface. This new surface holds great promise in terms of mitigating or preventing periprosthetic infection. ß

show abstract

Risk Factors for Infection Following Operative Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

Cited by 83 publications

References 0 publications

A comparison of outcomes between immediate and delayed repair of mandibular fractures

A comparison of outcomes between immediate and delayed repair of mandibular fractures

Symptomatic Plate Removal in Maxillofacial Trauma

Vancomycin covalently bonded to titanium alloy prevents bacterial colonization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About