The relationship between head injury and facial trauma: a case–control study

Zandi, Mohammad; Hoseini, Seyed Rohallah Seyed

doi:10.1007/s10006-012-0368-z

Cited by 62 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mainly documented etiologic factor for injury was RTA with 69.38%, followed by assault (16.76%), fall (11.04%) and sports injury was (2.87%). As shown in With respect to associated injuries, a sum of 48 patients introduced head injuries and other concomitant injuries as described in Figure- 17 and study conducted by Grant Al clearly indicated Incidence of brain injury was 67% overall which is not similar with results of our study. 18 It is hard to separate the mortality & dreadfulness of maxillofacial fractures associated with it.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 78%

Maxillofacial Fractures; Assessment of Concomitant Injuries

Punjabi

Talpur

Memon

et al. 2016

TPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT… Background: The incidence of maxillofacial fractures is greater in Pakistan. This research has the crucial aim of achieve and indexing maxillofacial injuries in poly trauma patients. Objectives: To assess the concomitant injuries with maxillofacial trauma. Study Design: Descriptive case series. Setting: The department of Emergency and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Period: Jan 2014 to Dec 2015. Methods: Total 489 patients of both genders, aged ≥20 years were included. Results: more injuries 359 (73.40%) occurs among the age of 20-39 years. The mainly documented etiologic factor for injury was RTA with 69.38%, followed by assault (16.76%), fall (11.04%) and sports injury was (2.87%). With respect to related injuries, a sum of 48 patients introduced head injuries and other concomitant injuries. The most common fracture noted was mandible 296 (60.53) followed by maxillary fractures 191 (39%), Zygomatic bone complex fractures 65 (13.29%), Naso-orabital ethmoid fractures was 44 (8.99%), majority of patients 186 (38.0%) were arrived in morning time followed by 176 (35.9%) in evening, 88 (17.9%) in afternoon and 39 (7.9%) in night, regarding the day's most patients came on first working day that was Saturday 142 (29.0%). Regarding hospital mortality, 11 (2.2%) people died within less than two days after admittance. Conclusion: The results of this study may support the oral surgeons to rule out other injuries at the time of primary survey and may have a key role in awareness of individuals in prevention of road traffic accidents.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 78%

Maxillofacial Fractures; Assessment of Concomitant Injuries

Punjabi

Talpur

Memon

et al. 2016

TPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also not clear how the diagnosis of facial injuries was made or confirmed (facial x-rays of CT scan). Although in conclusion, it has been suggested that "the patients with concomitant head and facial injuries had a high GCS score (12-15) at the time of admission" [1] However, it has not been well supported by the results of the study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The patients were categorized into concomitant maxillofacial and head injuries (the "study group") and patients with maxillofacial trauma without associated head injuries (the "control group"). [1] In the workup of the patients, the details of facial trauma, including medical history, physical examination, radiographic evaluation, and many other consultations (details not available here) were included. [1] The definition of the head injury is not clear as the patients with skull fracture and intracranial injuries were only included.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1] In the workup of the patients, the details of facial trauma, including medical history, physical examination, radiographic evaluation, and many other consultations (details not available here) were included. [1] The definition of the head injury is not clear as the patients with skull fracture and intracranial injuries were only included. It is not clear how many patients with any systemic injuries were included or excluded.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Re: The relationship between head injury and facial trauma

Agrawal

2013

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dear Sir, We read the article "The relationship between head injury and facial trauma: a case-control study" [1] with great interest. In the present prospective study, the authors discuss their experience with the pattern of facial bone fractures and their correlation with intracranial injuries. The patients were categorized into concomitant maxillofacial and head injuries (the "study group") and patients with maxillofacial trauma without associated head injuries (the "control group"). [1] In the workup of the patients, the details of facial trauma, including medical history, physical examination, radiographic evaluation, and many other consultations (details not available here) were included.[1] The definition of the head injury is not clear as the patients with skull fracture and intracranial injuries were only included. It is not clear how many patients with any systemic injuries were included or excluded. In the section about the causes of injury, particularly the violence in itself, does not clarify the severity of impact as it can range from domestic violence to violent street agitations; also, sports-related injuries can range from a football match to motor racing. In the present study, the intracranial injuries were categorized as concussion, cerebral contusion, and intracranial hemorrhages; however, there were no clear-cut criteria whether it was a clinical diagnosis or imaging findings (either x-ray or CT scan). It is not clear that the patient who had head injury (means 302 patients) only underwent neurosurgical evaluation and CT scan as there are no details regarding how many patients were investigated for the intracranial injuries and how was the head injury ruled out in other patients (although the definition of the head injury in itself is not clear). It is not clear whether the patients in the control group underwent CT scan; if yes, then how many patients had abnormal imaging in non-head injury (control) group? And if no, then how was head injury ruled out? It is also not clear how the diagnosis of facial injuries was made or confirmed (facial x-rays of CT scan). Although in conclusion, it has been suggested that "the patients with concomitant head and facial injuries had a high GCS score (12-15) at the time of admission" [1] However, it has not been well supported by the results of the study.

show abstract

Incidence of Concussion in Patients With Isolated Mandible Fractures

Sobin

Kopp

Walsh

et al. 2016

JAMA Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEThis study examines the association between isolated mandible fractures and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).OBJECTIVE To determine the rates of mTBI in patients who have sustained isolated mandible fractures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA prospective study was conducted among patients who sustained isolated mandible fractures within 24 hours of presentation. Patients were administered the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE). Recorded data included demographics, time since injury, use of alcohol or illicit drugs, nonfacial pain, and mechanism of injury. All patients were evaluated in the emergency department of a level I trauma center between June 20, 2013, and June 20, 2014. In addition, discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was analyzed to identify current rates of patients with a diagnosis of both mandible fractures and concussions.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Rates of concussion. Patients with a MACE score of less than 25 were considered to have mTBI.RESULTS Sixteen patients met the study criteria over a 1-year period. Fourteen patients (88%) were male, and mean age was 27.5 years. The mean time since injury was 11.25 hours (range, 3-21 hours). The mechanism of injury was assault in 12 patients (75%), sports in 2 patients (13%), all-terrain vehicle crash in 1 patient (6%), and biking in 1 patient (6%). Eight patients (50%) admitted to the use of alcohol, and none reported the use of illicit drugs. Eleven patients (69%) reported loss of consciousness. Twelve patients (75%) met criteria for concussion according to the MACE. Among these 12 patients, 7 (58%) admitted to the use of alcohol at the time of injury. There was no relationship between the rates of concussion and the use of alcohol.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mandible fractures are often sustained after high-force impacts during altercations between men. In our study, a 75% (12 of 16) rate of concussions associated with isolated mandible fractures was identified. Patients with isolated mandible fractures may benefit from being screened for concussion and referred to a concussion clinic.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.

show abstract

The relationship between head injury and facial trauma: a case–control study

Abstract: Present study revealed that fracture of facial bones, especially bones that are in anatomic proximity to the cranium and need a high magnitude of trauma energy to be fractured, was marker for an increased risk of head injuries.

Cited by 62 publications

References 25 publications

Maxillofacial Fractures; Assessment of Concomitant Injuries

Maxillofacial Fractures; Assessment of Concomitant Injuries

Re: The relationship between head injury and facial trauma

Incidence of Concussion in Patients With Isolated Mandible Fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About