ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
  • 35 of 60
УЖМБС 2019, 4(6): 239–244

Retrospective Analysis of the Structures of Traumatic Damages in the Maxillofacial Area in Lviv in the Period from 2016 to 2018

Matolych U. D. 1, Ushtan S. V. 1, Nazarevych M. R. 1, Kaminskyy M. V. 2, Kaminskyy V. I. 3

The problem of injuries is a relevant scientific-medical and socially significant topics. Patients with injuries of maxillofacial area are according to the literature from 20 % to 40 % of the total number of hospitalized in of surgical dentistry. Fractures of the facial skeleton bones make up 88 % of all traumatic lesions of maxillofacial area. Among injuries of the bones of the facial skeleton, fractures of the mandible dominated by the fraction of 74-95 % of the observations. The purpose of the study was to conduct a retrospective analysis of the structure of traumatic injuries of maxillofacial area in patients undergoing treatment in hospital for the determination of the priority directions of the development of surgical dentistry. Material and methods. We studied the archival documents and conducted a retrospective analysis of the disease records of patients with traumatic injuries of maxillofacial area treated at the branches of the maxillofacial surgery of the MNE “Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care” and the Lviv Regional Clinical Hospital during 2016-2018. The calculations were performed using the Microsoft Excel 2003 program. Results and discussion. The results of a retrospective study showed the following: 1928 patients were hospitalized for traumatic injuries, which accounted for 26.2 % of the structure of maxillofacial pathology. Most of them were men (n=1704; 88.4 %) and city dwellers (n=1181; 61.3 %). Most of the injuries occurred in people of working age, who had negative economic and social significance. Household injuries (84.1 %) prevailed over other types of injuries. A mandibular fracture was diagnosed in 1527 (79.2 %) patients; a maxillary fracture was diagnosed in 115 (5.9 %) patients; a maxillary and mandibular fracture was diagnosed in 30 (1.6 %) patients; zygomatic arches and zygomatic bones were diagnosed in 239 (12.4 %) patients; the fracture of the bones of the nose was diagnosed in 19 (0.9%) patients. Treatment of fractures of the facial skull bones was carried out by orthopedic (conservative), surgical, combined surgical-orthopedic method. Orthopedic methods of treatment of fractures were used in 48.2 % of patients. In order to achieve the best functional and anatomical restoration of bone, surgical fracture management was used for indications, which provided careful repositioning and fixation of bone fragments. We noted the dynamic growth of operational activity (2016 – 26.5 % of cases, in 2017 – 33.4 % of cases, in 2018 – 40.1 % of cases). In the surgical-orthopedic method, before the operative fixation of the bones, individual nasal tire fabrics manufactured by the laboratory were performed in 16.2 % of patients. Conclusion. The expedient is the need for wider involvement in practice of surgical treatment of fractures. The analysis of the traumatism of maxillofacial area leads to continuous monitoring of this problem with the aim of long-term planning and optimization of patient care.

Keywords: maxillofacial area, traumatic injuries, facial bone fractures

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 225K

  1. Grigorov SN. Povrezhdenija licevogo cherepa: struktura travm i analiz faktorov oslozhnjonnogo techenija [Facial skeleton injuries: analysis of constitutional-biological factors, structure of traumas and factors of complicated course]. World of Medicine and biology. 2010; 4(27): 172-6. [Russiаn]
  2. Lewis R, Hay G, Sivarajasingam V. The characteristics of facial injuries presenting to the oral and maxillofacial department at the University Hospital of Wales, United Kingdom: what has changed? International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2017; 46(1): 85-6.
  3. Boffano P, Roccia F, Zavattero E, Dediol E, Uglesic V, Kovacic Z, et al. European Maxillofacial Trauma (EURMAT) project: A multicentre and prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43(1): 62-70.
  4. Vujcich N, Gebauer D. Current and evolving trends in the management of facialfractures. Australian Dental Journal. 2018; 63: S35–S47.
  5. Hassanein AG. Trends and Outcomes of Management of Mandibular Fractures. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2019; 30(4): 1245-51.
  6. Munante-Cardenas JL, Nunes PHF, Passeri LA. Etiology, Treatment, and Complications of Mandibular Fractures. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2015; 26(3): 611-5.
  7. Aldwsari OM, Aldosari KH, Alzahrani MK, Alzahrani ZA, Alanazi AH, Alkhathlan KM, et al. Associated head injuries and survival rate of patients with maxillofacial fractures in road traffic accident: A prospective study in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2018; 7(6): 1548-54.
  8. Adalarasan S, Mohan A, Pasupathy S. Prophylactic Antibiotics in Maxillofacial Fractures: A Requisite? Journal of Craniofac. Surg. 2010; 21(4): 1009-11.
  9. Ramadhan A, Gavelin P, Hirsch JM. A retrospective study of patients with mandibular fractures treated at a Swedish University Hospital 1999-2008. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 4(2): 178–81.
  10. Rybachuk AV, Mamonov RO, Malanchuk VO. Epidemiolohiya travmatychnykh perelomiv nyzhnʹoyi shchelepy v period z 2005 po 2014 p. za materialamy kliniky kafedry [Epidemiology of traumatic mandibular fractures in the period from 2005 to 2014 by the clinic department materials]. Kharkiv surgical school. 2012; 1(76): 117-22. [Ukrainian]
  11. Motamedi M, Dadgar E, Ebrahimi A, Shirani G, Haghighat A, Jamalpour M. Pattern of maxillofacial fractures: A 5-year analysis of 8,818 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 77(4): 630-4.
  12. Pohranychna KhR. Pryntsypy likuvannya perelomiv nyzhnʹoyi shchelepy: statisticheskiye tendentsii [Structure of traumatic injuries of maxillofacial area: statistical tendencies]. Medytsyna transportu Ukrayiny. 2013; 3: 86-90. [Ukrainian]
  13. Cabalag M, Wasiak J, Andrew N, Tang J, Kirby JC, Morgan DJ. Epidemiology and management of maxillofacial fractures in an Australian traumacentre. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014; 67(2): 183-9.
  14. Murray JM. Mandible fractures and dental trauma. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2013; 31(20): 553-73. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1016/j.emc.2013.02.002
  15. Gutta R, Tracy K, Johnson C, James LE, Krishnan DG, Marciani RD. Outcomes of mandible fracture treatment at an academictertiary hospital: a 5-year analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72(3): 550-8.
  16. Matolych UD. Kharakterystyka perebihu reparatyvnoho osteohenezu pry rannikh zapalʹnykh uskladnennyakh perelomiv nyzhnʹoyi shchelepyyu [Characteristic of the flow reparative osteogeneza the early complications of mandible fractures]. Bulletin of problems biology and medicine. 2012; 2(97): 256-8. [Ukrainian]
  17. Ascani G, Di Cosimo F, Costa M, Mancini P, Caporale C. Maxillofacial fractures in the Province of Pescara, Italy: A retrospective study. ISRN Otolaryngol. 2014; Article ID 101370.