Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

Cross-sectional study.

Concurrent substance-use, including alcohol and drugs, increases the risks of many recreational activities. Our purpose was to determine the relationship between substance use and craniofacial injuries in a large population of patients experiencing trauma due to recreational motorized vehicle use.

We report a cross-sectional study of patients reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, in the United States. Patients were included in our study if they were evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for a recreational motorized vehicle-related injury. Primary outcome was craniofacial injury.

There were a total of 6,485 adult patients who experience an injury after recreational motorized vehicle trauma reported by NEISS-participating EDs during the study period. Of this, 1,416 (21.8%) patients had a craniofacial injury, and 201 patients with craniofacial injuries were under the influence of alcohol/drugs (201/1,416; 14.2%). Injured patients under the influence of alcohol/drugs experienced greater odds of sustaining a general craniofacial injury (OR 2.50, 95% CI: 2.07-3.01, P < .0001), including craniofacial fracture (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 2.01-4.40, P < .0001), laceration (OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.51-3.16, P < .00001) and internal injury (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.84-2.95, P < .00001) than injured patients not under the influence.

Using recreational motorized vehicles under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not safe and increases the likelihood of craniofacial injuries, including fractures, lacerations, and internal injuries. As operating these recreational motorized vehicles under the influence is illegal, the law should be strictly enforced to prevent the occurrence of these injuries. Additional undertakings to increase helmet usage would be valuable.

A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: “In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?” and fill the PICO assessment out.

To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance.

Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series).

A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods.

In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.

Retrospective cohort study.

The challenges of COVID-19 could magnify socioeconomic vulnerability for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) trauma. This study compares subjects who presented with CMF fractures to a regional healthcare system during the pandemic with those in 2019. We hypothesized societal circumstances of 2020 would correlate with disproportionately more CMF fractures in vulnerable patients compared to pre-pandemic trends.

An IRB approved retrospective study of CMF fracture presentations in 2019 and 2020 was performed. Demographics, injury details, and management details were collected. A residence-based poverty index was calculated for each subject utilizing census data. Pre-pandemic and pandemic cases were compared to identify differences between cohorts.

A large decrease in presentations was noted between pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts. There was significantly greater poverty the pre-pandemic cohort as compared to the pandemic cohort (P = .026). Overall, there was a significant correlation between higher poverty and violent MOI (P < .001). This association was maintained pre-pandemic, (P = .001) but was insignificant in the pandemic cohort (P = .108). Difference between cohorts with respect to violent injury was non-significant (P = .559) with non-significant difference in demographics including age (P = .390), place of injury (P = .136), employment status (P = .905), insurance status (P = .580), marital status (P = .711), ethnicity (P = .068), and gender (P = .656). Management was not significantly different between cohorts including percent hospital admission (P = .396), surgical intervention (P = .120), and time to operation (P = .109).

Contrary to our hypothesis, this analysis indicates that the societal changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic did not magnify vulnerable populations. Some changes were noted including in volume of presentation, demographic distribution, and injury detail.