Epidemiology of Facial Injury in Female Blunt Assault Trauma Cases

Abstract

Background: Etiology of trauma in the female population differs from that of the male population. To date, domestic violence has been researched extensively, but little has been published about the epidemiology of facial injury in the female population. Objectives:To analyze the differences in the circumstances under which males and females are injured, to identify gender-specific patterns of injury, and to assess whether differences in the demographics, health status, and druguse profile exist between female and male assault cases and whether these factors lead to a difference in outcome.Methods: A cohort of 91 female assault cases was compared with a control group of 706 males with similar injuries resulting from blunt assault trauma. Information was gathered by retrospective review of 797 consecutive cases requiring admission for facial injuries resulting from blunt assault trauma. Fisher exact, 2 , and t tests were used to assess statistically significant differences between the male and female cohorts. Results:The female cohort comprised 12% of all cases admitted for blunt assault facial trauma. One third of fe-male blunt assault facial trauma patients were subjects of domestic violence. Statistically significant differences were found between males and females for the type of assault (rape, domestic violence, altercation, etc) with PϽ.0001. Females were more likely to be admitted with soft tissue injury only but no fracture (PϽ.05), less likely to be assaulted with a weapon, and unlikely to be involved in an altercation, gang violence, arrest, or robbery. Females were also less likely than males to be injured while intoxicated (PϽ.05). Incidence of specific injury patterns and outcomes, however, were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion:The present data support the hypothesis that the female blunt assault facial trauma population represents a distinct epidemiological entity, with significant differences in the circumstances of injury, mechanism of assault, and role of intoxication in the incidence of injury. The prevalence of facial trauma in female assault cases makes it critical for the facial plastic surgeon to be vigilant in the evaluation and treatment of these patients.

A 4-year retrospective study of facial fractures on Jeju, Korea

“…According to Greene et al (1999), female patients account for 12% of facial injuries following blunt assault trauma, a third of whom were assaulted during domestic violence. Huang et al (1998) showed in their studies that after traffic accidents, violence is the second most common cause of facial injuries among females, and 28.4% of those cases of violence are committed by men, most often the husband, life partner or an ex-partner.…”

Characteristics of maxillofacial trauma in females: A retrospective analysis of 367 patients

“…Thus, most reported epidemiological data and characteristics of maxillofacial injuries are associated with males. This trend has led to a lack of specific information on female maxillofacial trauma, which is generally studied with specific reference to violence-related injuries (Zachariades et al, 1990;Huang et al, 1998;Greene et al, 1999;Le et al, 2001;Gerber et al, 2009;Arosarena et al, 2009).…”

“…Few articles have been published concerning maxillofacial trauma in women, and often this issue is addressed with particular reference to domestic violence (Shepherd et al, 1988;Fisher et al, 1990;Zachariades et al, 1990;Greene et al, 1999;Le et al, 2001;Arosarena et al, 2009). …”

A Protocol to Diagnose Intimate Partner Violence in the Emergency Department

“…We chose head, neck, and facial (HNF) injuries because the findings are readily visible, unambiguous, and the HNF region is a common site for injury during assaults. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] We hypothesized that women with IPV-related injuries would have a higher frequency of injuries localized to the head, neck, and face (HNF) region than women with other injury etiologies. Injury location, such as HNF versus other regional anatomic locations, as a marker for IPV injuries had good sensitivity (90%), but poor specificity (59%).…”