A review of 100 closed head injuries associated with facial fractures

Haug, Richard H.; Savage, James D.; Likavec, Matt J.; Conforti, Philip J.

doi:10.1016/0278-2391(92)90315-q

Cited by 90 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[15] GCS is a good marker for determining potential brain injury, clinical conditions and prognosis of the patients following trauma. [10,22] In the current study, the risk of head trauma and mortality rate increased as the GCS decreased. However, this does not mean that there is no risk of head trauma in patients with maxillofacial trauma and high GCS scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…[5,7] Prompt detection may lead to improved results, as early decompression of an intracranial pressure is crucial in improving the outcome in head injury patients. [9][10][11] Thus, the healthcare provider who initially assesses the patient should examine the patient in terms of intracranial injury, which increases the morbidity and mortality. Although the relationship between head trauma and facial fractures classified as upper, middle and lower facial fractures has been investigated in the literature, the correlations between the fracture in each facial bone and cranial injury have not been clarified.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Presence of accompanying head injury in patients with maxillofacial trauma

Işık

Gönüllü²,

Karadaş³

et al. 2012

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AMAÇMaksillofasiyal kırığı bulunan hastalar, bu travmaya eşlik eden kafa travması geçirme konusunda yüksek risk altın-dadırlar. Bu hastalarda kafa travmasının erken anlaşılma-sı hastanın sağkalımı ve iyileşmesi için kritik öneme sahiptir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEMOcak 2006 ile Eylül 2009 tarihleri arasında hastanemizin acil servisine maksillofasiyal kırık nedeniyle gönderilen 246 hastanın kayıtları geriye dönük olarak tarandı. Hastaların yaş, cinsiyet, maksillofasiyal travmanın nedeni, tipi, yerleşimi ve kafa travması analiz edildi. BULGULARHastaların yaşlarının ortalaması 23,61±16,75 idi (%83,3 erkek, %16,7 kadın). Kraniyal yaralanma maksillofasiyal travmalı 38 hastada gözlendi. Hastalar arasında tek yüz kemiği kırığı bulunanlarda kafa travması riski çoklu kırıklı hastalara göre 3,44 kat daha az gözlenirken (p<0,001), yüz kemiği çoklu kırılan hastalarda kafa travması geçirme riski anlamlı derecede artmıştı (p<0,001). İçinde nazal kemik, maksiller kemik, mandibular kemik ve frontal bölge kırığı bulunan hastalarda kafa travması riski önemli derecede artmıştı (p<0,05 her bir grupta). SONUÇÇoklu yüz kemik kırığı bulunan hastalarda klinik bulguları olmasa dahi kafa travması yönünden araştırılmaları gerekir.Anahtar Sözcükler: Maksillofasiyal travma; kafa travması; yüz kemik kırığı.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presence of accompanying head injury in patients with maxillofacial trauma

Işık

Gönüllü²,

Karadaş³

et al. 2012

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other series (15-21) also report severe associated injuries, with rates as high as 89%, although these series often report on combined facial and not mandible fractures in isolation (18,22). Carlin et al (22) reported associated closed head injuries (40%), extremity fractures (33%), thoracic trauma (29%) and traumatic brain injuries (25%) in 828 patients sustaining midface and/or mandible fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of mandibular fracture epidemiology in Canada: Enhancing injury prevention and patient evaluation

Czerwinski¹,

Parker²,

Chehade³

2008

Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Mandibular fractures can lead to significant functional and aesthetic sequelae if treated improperly. They may act as an indicator of concomitant trauma and are very demanding on the public health care system. Thus, knowledge of mandibular fracture epidemiology is critical to effective prevention, as well the establishment of accurate trauma evaluation protocols. OBJECTIVES: To identify the epidemiology of mandibular fractures treated at a level 1 Canadian trauma centre, clarify the pathogenesis of these epidemiological patterns and suggest potential targets for preventive efforts. METHODS: A retrospective review of all mandibular fracture patients presenting to the Montreal General Hospital between 1998 and 2003 was performed. Medical records and digitized radiographic imaging were used to collect patient demographics and injury data. RESULTS: The chart review identified 181 patients with 307 mandibular fractures. Fifty-two per cent of the fractures occurred in individuals 21 to 40 years of age, 78% of patients were male, and there was wide ethnic diversity. Sixty percent of patients had multiple mandibular fractures; 29% were symphyseal/parasymphyseal fractures, 25% were condylar fractures and 23% were angle fractures. Assault was the most common mechanism of injury, with 29% of fractures involving alcohol or illegal drug use. Thirty percent of patients had an associated facial fracture, and more than one-third had another major injury. CONCLUSIONS: The present epidemiological review reveals several potential prevention targets as well as significant trends. Further research into the impact of these preventive measures could more objectively identify their impact on mandibular trauma.

show abstract

“…It probably comes from the fact that isolated Nose fracture was managed by other specialties like ENT and Plastic Surgery. GCS is a good marker for determining potential brain injury, clinical conditions and prognosis of the patients following trauma 24 . On the basis of GCS scores of the patients, It was found that, majority of patients with head injury according to their GCS score were classified as having moderate head injury 55% (n=33), followed by severe head injury 20% (n=12),mild head injury 15% (n=9), and minor head injury 10% (n=6) respectively.…”

Section: Graph 2: Distribution Of Glasgow Coma Score (Gcs) Of the Patmentioning

confidence: 99%