SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.114 issue3Editorial on “Laparoscopic approach to abdominal trauma. Experience in a trauma hospital”Laparoscopic approach to abdominal trauma. Experience in a trauma hospital author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

  • Have no cited articlesCited by SciELO

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Revista argentina de cirugía

Print version ISSN 2250-639XOn-line version ISSN 2250-639X

Rev. argent. cir. vol.114 no.3 Cap. Fed. Sept. 2022

http://dx.doi.org/10.25132/raac.v114.n3.1663 

Articles

Management of maxillofacial fractures and its complications

María V. Chiacchio2  * 

Francisco A. Santucho Saravia1 

Tamara N. Almada2 

Javier L. Rossi1 

1 Servicio de Cirugía de Cabeza y Cuello. Hospital Militar Central. Buenos Aires. Argentina

2 Servicio de Cirugía General. Hospital Militar Central. Buenos Aires. Argentina

Introduction

Trauma is defined as the injury of tissues and organs from acute or chronic transmission of energy1. Maxillofacial trauma corresponds to all traumatic injuries affecting the bones of the face, determined by the upper, middle and lower thirds of the face. Nowdays, it represents one of the main healthcare issues worldwide. Because of these injuries are extremely serious and complex, they are often associated with high morbidity, loss of function and high cosmetic, social and economic costs2-4. The basic principles of fracture treatment include reduction of bone fragments and fixation and monitoring of postoperative complications5. The goals are to obtain complete and stable fixation, protect the organs of the face, preserve craniofacial contours and prominences, and restore dental occlusion and pre-injury joint function6. The aim of this study is to analyze the experience of the interventions performed in patients with maxillofacial fractures and the subsequent management of their complications.

Material and methods

We conducted a retrospective and observational study. Data from 205 patients admitted in the area of general surgery of Hospital Militar Central de Buenos Aires due to head and neck surgery between 2011 and 2019 was retrieved from the electronic clinical records. The variables analyzed were demographics, year of intervention, mechanisms of trauma, type of fractures, type of procedure and postoperative complications according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification7. Readmissions were defined as a new hospitalization within 30 days after hospital discharge. In accordance with our surgical technique, the approaches most used were coronal and external ciliary for upper-third fractures; subciliary for orbital floor fractures; superior vestibular for middle-third fractures and inferior vestibular for mandibular body fractures. The Risdon approach was used for fractures of the mandible body, angle and ramus. Data were analyzed using a Microsoft Office Excel© spreadsheet.

Results

Of the 205 patients with maxillofacial fractures, 81.46% were men (n = 167). Figure 1 shows the incidence by age ranges; the highest incidence was in the age range between 21 and 30 years (38.54%; n = 79), followed by the age range < 20 years, (14.15%; n = 29).

Figure 1 Age range 

The types of facial fractures and their frequency are detailed in Table 1, subdivided into panfacial bone fractures (12.2%; n = 25) (Fig. 2f (involving > 1 third of the face); upper-third fractures (1.46%; n = 3), middle-third fractures (72.2%; n = 148) and lower-third fractures (14,15%; n = 29).

Table 1 Classification of fractures by type and frequency 

Figure 2 Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) scan of face bone fractures. A: Axial section. Fracture of the anterior wall with opacification of the left maxillary sinus. B: Coronal section. Fracture of the floor of the right orbit with herniation of orbital fat into the ipsilateral maxillary sinus. C: Three-dimensional MSCT. Multiple mandibular fractures. D: Axial section. Displaced left parasymphyseal fracture of the mandible. E: Three-dimensional MSCT. Fracture of the superior wall of the right maxillary sinus. F: Coronal section. Fracture of the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus and mandibular ramus without displacement. 

In the upper third of the face, 66.67% (n = 2) corresponded to frontal sinus fractures associated with the frontal bone (Fig. 2e). The most common fractures of the middle third of the face were combined (54.73%; n = 81), followed by isolated fractures of the floor of the orbit (27.7%; n = 41) (Fig. 2b). In the lower third of the face, complex fractures were most common (34.48%; n = 10) (Fig. 2c), followed by multiple fractures (24.14%; n = 1) and mandible ramus fractures, (17.24%; n = 5) The mechanisms of trauma by order of frequency were traffic collision (56.1%; n = 115), blunt trauma (27.32%; n = 56), ground level fall 15.12% (n = 31) and gunshot injury 1.46% (n = 3). Table 2 shows the association found between the type of facial fracture and its mechanism of trauma.

Table 2 Association between the type of fracture and mechanism of trauma 

Non-surgical management was decided in only 6 patients (2.92%). In 199 patients (97.07%), surgical treatment consisted of reconstruction with titanium mini-plates and screws in 95.48%, reconstruction with titanium mesh and screws and use of osteoconductive material in 80.9% (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Treatment of maxillofacial fractures. A: Intermaxillary fixation with IMF (intermaxillary fixation) screws. B: Reconstruction of right mandibular body fracture with titanium mini-plate and screws. C: Reconstruction of right mandibular angle fracture with titanium mini-plate and screws. D: Reconstruction of a fracture of the floor of the right orbit with titanium mini-plate and mesh with screws. E: Reconstruction of multiple fracture of the mandible with titanium mini-plates and screws. 

Post-operative complications occurred in 11.56% of the cases (n = 3), and according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification were as follows: grade I (seroma in 2 cases, edema in 4, pain in 3, temporary diplopia in 1, temporary paresthesia in 4, and ectropion in 3) in 8.54% (n = 17); grade II (corresponding to 1 case of fistula with spontaneous closure) in 0.5% (n =1) and grade IIIb (persistent fistula in 2 and rejection of prosthetic material in 3) in 2.52% (n = 5). No complications grade IV or V were reported.

Discussion

The results obtained in this study show that most maxillofacial trauma occurred in men and the age range most affected was between 21 and 30 years, followed by those < 20 years and those between 31 and 40 years. Then, the incidence of facial fractures decreases as age increases. These age ranges and gender distribution are similar to the results of other publications8-12,4,13.

Nowadays, computed tomography scan is the gold standard for the evaluation of facial fractures, while the extension of lesions to other tissues allows characterization by different criteria and identification of possible causes of complications14. The epidemiology of facial fractures varies by type, severity and cause depending on the study population9,12.

In our study, middle-third bone face fractures were most common, in accordance with previous studies9,11,15. We found that combined fractures had the highest prevalence, followed by isolated fractures of the orbital floor; this is due to the fact that, in general, they are commonly associated with maxillary, zygomatic or nasal fractures due to the anatomy of the region16. One of the first mechanisms of orbital fracture was described in 1943 by Pfeiffer (blow out), who stated that the force of the blow received by the eyeball is transmitted by it to the walls of the orbit, fracturing the most delicate bones, such as the floor of the orbit. In the less severe cases the posterior portion is fractured, and in the more severe injuries the entire floor is broken through17. The presence of an air-fluid level or complete opacification of the maxillary sinus and fat herniation (teardrop sign) is common, which may also involve the inferior rectus muscle and the inferior oblique muscle and be associated with diplopia. Rarely fragments from an orbital floor fracture buckle up into the orbit, an injury referred to as a “blow-in” fracture16.

Lower-third fractures occurred in second place; this result differs from that of other publications in which the lower third was the most commonly affected13,18-23. Finally, upper-third fractures accounted for 1.46% of cases (n = 3). In our study, traffic collisions were the most common cause of fractures across all fracture categories, mainly in the age groups 21-30 years and <20 years. This can be explained by the fact that these groups are involved in high-risk activities, use mainly car transportation, and participate mostly in nocturnal activities. These statistical data were similar to those reported by other publications18,8,9,24,11,16,13. A recent international original research paper concludes that the cause of injury varies by geographic region and sex; the most common causes are ground level falls and blunt force trauma due to physical violence25.

Titanium mini-plates or meshes with screws, or both elements with or without osteoconductive material, were used in the patients who underwent surgery. Titanium-based material for osteosynthesis is insoluble in the body, has excellent corrosion and mechanical resistance and biocompatibility, and is biologically inert6. In our series only 23 patients (11.56%) developed complications; the highest percentage (8.54%, n = 17) were mild (grade I), followed by 2.52% (n = %) grade IIIb complications (fistula and rejection of prosthetic material), which required further surgeries. Within this last category, the mechanism of trauma was traffic collision in 4 patients in the age range between 21 and 50 years, while in the remaining patient, the mechanism of trauma was blunt trauma in the age range of 71-80 years. Among the different complications that can occur in the treatment of fractures, the most common were infections in the site of the fracture and their consequent progression to fistula and rejection of the prosthetic material26. This supports the aforementioned statement that traffic collisions were the most prevalent cause and can be considered as contaminated wounds; thus, their treatment and postoperative outcome are more complex. We did not observe serious complications, deaths or readmissions.

Conclusion

In our series, most patients were young men, traffic collisions were the most common cause of trauma, and the middle third of the face was the most affected region. Surgical management, mostly by open reduction and fixation with titanium osteosynthesis material, is an effective, safe and reliable procedure, which allows the restoration of pre-trauma function in most patients, with very low rate of postoperative complications and repeated surgeries.

Referencias bibliográficas /References

1. Andrades DP, Sergio Sepúlveda. Cirugía plástica esencial. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile; 2005. [ Links ]

2. Mardones M. Traumatología máxilofacial: diagnóstico y tratamiento. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 2011; 22(5): 607- 16. [ Links ]

3. Kühnel TS, et al. Trauma of the midface. GMS Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surg. 2015; 14. [ Links ]

4. César Augusto Fernández Dulcey CA. Fracturas orbitarias, lesiones asociadas y predictores de mortalidad en un hospital de IV nivel. Revista Argentina de Cirugía Plástica. 2018; 24(3): 115-20. [ Links ]

5. Joss U, et al. Use of a mandibular fracture score to predict the development of complications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57(1): 2-5. [ Links ]

6. Iribarren O y cols. Complicaciones de la fijación interna con placas de titanio de las fracturas maxilofaciales. Revista Chilena de Cirugía. 2002;54(4): 368-72. [ Links ]

7. Clavien PA, Barkun J, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187-96. Disponible en: HYPERLINK “10.1097/ SLA.0b013e318b13ca2” 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318b13ca2. [ Links ]

8. González E y cols. Fracturas faciales en un centro de referencia de traumatismos nivel I. Estudio descriptivo. Rev Esp Cir Oral y Maxilofac. 2015; 37(2): 65-70. [ Links ]

9. Gassner R, et al. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10 year review of 9543 cases with 21 067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003; 31: 51-61. [ Links ]

10. Arangio P, et al. Maxillofacial fractures in the province of Latina, Lazio, Italy: Review of 400 injuries and 83 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013; 42(5): 583-7. [ Links ]

11. Canisto FA. Fracturas del tercio medio facial. Experiencia en el Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, 1999 - 2009. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina. 2013;74(2): 123-8. [ Links ]

12. Shayyab M, Alsoleihat F, Ryalat S, et al. Trends in the Pattern of Facial Fractures in Different Countries of the World. Int J Morphol. 2012;30(2): 745-56. [ Links ]

13. Chee Wei Lee, et al. An Overview of maxillofacial Trauma in oral and maxillofacial tertiary trauma centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kota Knabalu, Sabah. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstruction. 2017; 10: 16-21. [ Links ]

14. Reyes JM, et al. Classification and epidemiology of orbital fractures diagnosed by computed tomography. Revista Argentina de Radiología. 2013; 77: 139-46. [ Links ]

15. Palma VC, et al. Freqüência de fraturas faciais em pacientes atendidos num serviço hospitalar. Rev Odontol Univ São Paulo. 1995; 09(02): 121-6. [ Links ]

16. Tomich G, Baigorria P, Orlando N, Méjico M, Costamagna C, Villavicencio R. Frecuencia y tipo de fracturas en traumatismos maxilofaciales. Evaluación con Tomografía Multislice con reconstrucciones multiplanares y tridimensionales. Revista Argentina de Radiología. 2011; 75(4): 305-17. [ Links ]

17. Pfeiffer RL. Traumatic Enophthalmos. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society. 1943; 41: 293-306. [ Links ]

18. De Souza Maliska MC, Monteiro Lima S Jr., Gil JN. Analysis of 185 maxillofacial fractures in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Oral Maxil Surg. 2009;23: 268-74. [ Links ]

19. Brasileiro BF, et al. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: a Five-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102: 28-34. [ Links ]

20. Chrcanovic BR, et al. Facial fractures: a 1-year retrospective study in a hospital. Braz Oral Res. 2004;18(4): 322-8. [ Links ]

21. Ahmed HE, Jaber MA, et al. The pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates:a review of 230 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral. 2004;98(2): 166-70. [ Links ]

22. Ansari MH. Maxillofacial fractures in Hamedan province, Iran: a retrospective study (1987-2001). J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2004;32(1): 28-34. [ Links ]

23. Lida S, et al. Retrospective analysis of 1502 patients with facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;30(4): 286-90. [ Links ]

24. Mesgarzadeh AH, et al. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in north western of Iran: A retrospective study. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock. 2011; 4(1): 48-52. [ Links ]

25. Lalloo R, et al. Epidemiology of facial fractures: incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study. Inj Prev. 2020; 26: i27-i35. [ Links ]

26. Serena Gómez E y col. Factores relevantes en complicaciones de fracturas mandibulares. Relato de 5 años. Rev Esp Cir Oral y Maxilofac. 2009; 31(2): 109-17. [ Links ]

27. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10 year review of 9543 cases with 21 067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003; 31:51-61. [ Links ]

Received: September 01, 2021; Accepted: March 09, 2022

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons