The Treatment of Nasal Fractures

Ondik, Michael P.; Lipinski, Lindsay J.; Dezfoli, Seper; Fedok, Fred G.

doi:10.1001/archfacial.2009.65

Cited by 37 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,16 Type I nasal bone fractures were the commonest in our study as against type II fractures in the above-mentioned studies. The disparity may be due to the fact that our study was a descriptive one, whereas the abovesaid studies were retrospective and the study population was on patients who required hospitalization and intervention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

“…6,7,10 The peak incidence of maxillofacial injuries was in the age group 21 to 30 years which was in concordance with all the other studies. 1,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] This is because of the increased use of vehicles and travel in the third decade of life. The most common etiological factor for maxillofacial injuries is road traffic crashes in our country.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterns of Maxillofacial Fractures in Road Traffic Crashes in an Indian Rural Tertiary Center

Jayaraju¹,

Sagayaraj²,

Reddy³

et al. 2014

Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care &Amp; Emergency Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: Road traffic crashes are reported to be the leading cause of maxillofacial fractures in developing countries. The large variability in reported incidence and etiology is due to a variety of contributing factors, including environmental, cultural and socioeconomic factors. The study aims at describing the patterns of maxillofacial fractures in road traffic crashes by clinical and radiological methods and to study the complications associated with these fractures. Materials and methods:The study included 100 road traffic crash patients with maxillofacial injuries. Patients were evaluated for any maxillofacial fracture by clinical assessment and, radiologically, using plain radiographs and computed tomography scan. Results:Midfacial skeleton was more prone to fractures. Isolated fractures of the maxilla was the commonest (58%) followed by nasal bone fractures (43%). Among the complex fractures, Le Fort type II was the commonest. Mandibular fractures were seen in 33% of the patients, parasymphysis being the commonest site. Majority of the patients had associated soft tissue injuries. The incidence of complications associated with maxillofacial fractures was 11%, malocclusion being the commonest. Conclusion:Maxillofacial fractures are commoner in the mobile population in the most productive age group, more so in two wheeler riders causing significant morbidity and mortality. Midface region is more prone to fractures and is most of the time associated with complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Maxillofacial Fractures in Road Traffic Crashes in an Indian Rural Tertiary Center

Jayaraju¹,

Sagayaraj²,

Reddy³

et al. 2014

Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care &Amp; Emergency Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5,8 The indications for surgery are significant displacement of fragments, trismus, entrapment or involvement of the orbital apex. 12 The general consensus is that open reduction and fixation is required for all the displaced fractures. 13 The recent classification for these fractures 14 are as follows: Type A-Fracture involving only one of the three processes of the malar bone; zygomatic arch, external orbital rim or infraorbital rim; Type B-Displaced trimalar fracture; Type C-Comminuted trimalar fracture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of maxillofacial trauma

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Maxillofacial injuries are one of the most frequently encountered entities accounting for a large proportion of patients in emergency department. Present study was performed to assess the role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients of maxillofacial trauma and to describe the spectrum of various patterns of injuries in maxillofacial region in this part of Nepal. Methods: The study was carried out on a prospective basis over a period of one year. All the patients referred for evaluation of maxillofacial trauma were included in the study. MDCT was done in patients of maxillofacial injury and the data was recorded and analyzed. Volumetric MDCT scan of the maxillofacial region was performed in axial plane with multiplanar reconstruction in coronal and sagittal planes were obtained wherever required. Results: Out of 60 patients of maxillofacial trauma 42 (70%) were males and 18 (30%) were females and age ranges from 12 to 70 years. The 11?30 years age group has the highest percentage (55%) of maxillofacial trauma, followed by 31?40 (20%). The common cause of injuries in our study was road traffic accidents (58.33%), fall from height (20%), physical assault (16.66%) and sport injuries (5%). Out of 60 patients there was total of 115 fractures. The frequency and types of fracture was as follows: orbital floor fracture in 21 (35%), maxillary sinus wall fracture in 18 (30%), nasal bone fracture in 17 (28.33%), jaw fracture in 15 (25%), zygomatic bone fracture in 13 (21.66%), orbital wall fracture in 11 (18.33%), naso?ethmoidal fractures in 9 (15%), frontal sinus fracture in 7 (11.66%), Lefort fracture in 1 (1.66%) and others 3 (5%). The highest percentage of fracture was of orbital floor (35%) followed by fracture of wall of maxillary sinus (30%) and nasal bone fracture (28.33%). Three cases had simultaneous injury of the globe and cervical spine; they underwent computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of spine. Conclusion: Injuries to maxillofacial region is one of the most common emergency requiring accurate and early diagnosis for preventing unnecessary investigations and proper management. MDCT has high sensitivity and specificity and has high accuracy for detection of fracture. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v5i4.9561 Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 2014 Vol.5(4); 39-43

show abstract

“…Radyolojik olarak direkt burun grafisi çekilerek flüpheli k›r›k hatlar› aran›r. Bu grafilerde sütür hatlar› veya daha önce geçirilmifl fraktür hatlar› yeni bir k›r›k hatt› gibi görünebilece¤inden fizik muayene bulgular› ile desteklenmelidir (2,3). Nazal grafinin nazal fraktür de¤erlendirmesinde gerekli olmad›¤› baz› yazarlarca bildirilse de (5), adli nedenlerle çektirilmesi ve de¤er-lendirilmesi gereklidir.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Nazal Fraktürlerin Değerlendirilmesi ve Adli Tıp Yaklaşımı

Sayın¹,

Ekizoğlu²,

Yazıcı³

et al. 2010

Bull Leg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZETBu çal›flmada klini¤imize baflvuran nazal fraktür olgular›n›n de¤erlendirilmesi ve nazal fraktürlerde güncel adli t›bbi yaklafl›-m›n sunulmas› amaçlanm›flt›r. Bu amaçla Ocak 2009-Ocak 2010 tarihleri aras›nda klini¤imize maksillofasyal fraktür ile baflvuran olgulardan nazal fraktür tan›s› alan ve tedavi edilen hastalar geriye dönük olarak de¤erlendirilmifltir.Çal›flmam›zda toplam 580 olgu saptand›. Nazal fraktür s›kl›¤› tüm maksillofasyal k›-r›klar aras›nda %84,9' du (n:580/683). Ortalama baflvuru yafl› 28,4 idi (8 ay-84 yafl). Olgular›n 479' u (%82,6) erkek iken 101'i (%17,4) kad›nd›. En s›k rastlanan 3 neden etkili eylem (n:216, %37,2), düflme (n:122, %21) ve araç içi trafik kazas› (n:34, %5,9) idi. Fraktürlerin 41' i (%7,1) aç›k k›r›kken, 539'› (%92,9) kapal› fraktürlerdi. Kapal› fraktürler aras›nda 205 (%35,3) hastada deplase nazal fraktür saptan›rken deplase olmayan nazal fraktür say›s› 334 (%57,6) idi. Nazal fraktürler maksillofasyal travmalar içinde s›k rastlan›l›r ve erken dönem komplikasyonlar d›fl›nda uzun dönemde burun yap›s›nda de¤iflikli¤e neden olabilir. Etyoloji s›kl›kla etkili eylem, trafik veya ifl kazas› gibi nedenler oldu¤undan tüm olgular›n kay›t alt›na al›nmas› ve bu olgularda güncel adli t›bbi yaklafl›m›n bilinmesi önemlidir.Anahtar kelimeler: Nazal fraktür, etyoloji, adli t›p SUMMARYThe evaluation of the subjects with nasal fracture and present the current forensic approach. Between the dates January 2009 to January 2010 subjects who were diagnosed and treated with nasal fracture were enrolled for the study. A retrospective chart review was preformed and demographic data as well as etiology, fracture type were recorded. During the study period 580 subjects were identified. The incidence of nasal fractures was 84, 9% (n:580/683) among all the maxillofacial fractures.The mean age was 28,4 years (range between 8 months to 84 years). Four hundred and seventy eight (n:479 -82, 6%) out of 580 subjects were male whereas remaining 101 (17,4%) were female. Most common etiology were interpersonal violence (n:216, 37,2%), falls (n:122, 21%) and traffic accidents (n:34, 5,9%).Forty one ( n:41-7,1%) out of 580 fractures were open fractures whereas remaining 539 (%92,9) were closed fractures. Among the closed fractures 205 (35,3%) out of 539 fractures were displaced and the remaining 334 (57,6%) fractures were non displaced. Nasal fracture is a frequent situation among the maxillofacial fractures. Besides short term problems in long term it will cause structural changes within the nose. The etiologies mainly have forensic features that will be interpersonal violence and accidents. In this subjects needed a complete medical recording needed. Besides, physicians also need to know the current forensic approach.

show abstract

The Treatment of Nasal Fractures

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Patterns of Maxillofacial Fractures in Road Traffic Crashes in an Indian Rural Tertiary Center

Patterns of Maxillofacial Fractures in Road Traffic Crashes in an Indian Rural Tertiary Center

Multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of maxillofacial trauma

Nazal Fraktürlerin Değerlendirilmesi ve Adli Tıp Yaklaşımı

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About