Browsing by Subject "Skull Fractures"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Assessment of the Wisconsin Criteria at a Level I Trauma Center.
    (The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 2022-09) Gray, Megan C; Kollu, Tejas; Uppal, Priya A; Hanos, Christina; Heiman, Adee; Ricci, Joseph A; Patel, Ashit

    Abstract

    The Wisconsin Criteria was developed for physicians evaluating facial trauma to determine the likelihood of facial fractures. Subsequent studies have not consistently validated these criteria. This study seeks to validate the Wisconsin Criteria and determine its utility in predicting operative facial fractures.Retrospective chart review of the trauma database registry at a Level I Trauma Center was conducted from September 2011 to May 2019. Adult patients who had a complete facial examination by otolaryngology or plastic surgery as well as a head computed tomography scan completed, were included. Fisher exact test was utilized for statistical analysis ( P < 0.05) and positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval.After screening, 546 patients met eligibility, 448 had at least 1 finding of the Wisconsin Criteria, and 472 patients had facial fractures. The sensitivity of the Wisconsin Criteria for determining the presence of a facial fracture was 86.23%, the specificity was 44.59%, and the NPV was 33.67% ( P < .0001). Malocclusion was the criterion most specific in determining if a facial fracture was present (98.65%), and Glasgow Coma Score < 14 was the least specific (67.57%).The Wisconsin Criteria did aid in the identification of facial fractures in trauma patients with a comparable sensitivity, higher specificity, and much lower NPV than originally described. Further investigation should be done to validate the criteria in other large trauma centers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Hardware Removal in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Management Algorithm.
    (Annals of plastic surgery, 2015-11) Cahill, Thomas J; Gandhi, Rikesh; Allori, Alexander C; Marcus, Jeffrey R; Powers, David; Erdmann, Detlev; Hollenbeck, Scott T; Levinson, Howard

    Background

    Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures are typically treated with open reduction and internal fixation. Open reduction and internal fixation can be complicated by hardware exposure or infection. The literature often does not differentiate between these 2 entities; so for this study, we have considered all hardware exposures as hardware infections. Approximately 5% of adults with CMF trauma are thought to develop hardware infections. Management consists of either removing the hardware versus leaving it in situ. The optimal approach has not been investigated. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken and a resultant evidence-based approach to the treatment and management of CMF hardware infections was devised.

    Materials and methods

    A comprehensive search of journal articles was performed in parallel using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect electronic databases. Keywords and phrases used were maxillofacial injuries; facial bones; wounds and injuries; fracture fixation, internal; wound infection; and infection. Our search yielded 529 articles. To focus on CMF fractures with hardware infections, the full text of English-language articles was reviewed to identify articles focusing on the evaluation and management of infected hardware in CMF trauma. Each article's reference list was manually reviewed and citation analysis performed to identify articles missed by the search strategy. There were 259 articles that met the full inclusion criteria and form the basis of this systematic review. The articles were rated based on the level of evidence. There were 81 grade II articles included in the meta-analysis.

    Result

    Our meta-analysis revealed that 7503 patients were treated with hardware for CMF fractures in the 81 grade II articles. Hardware infection occurred in 510 (6.8%) of these patients. Of those infections, hardware removal occurred in 264 (51.8%) patients; hardware was left in place in 166 (32.6%) patients; and in 80 (15.6%) cases, there was no report as to hardware management. Finally, our review revealed that there were no reported differences in outcomes between groups.

    Conclusions

    Management of CMF hardware infections should be performed in a sequential and consistent manner to optimize outcome. An evidence-based algorithm for management of CMF hardware infections based on this critical review of the literature is presented and discussed.