Panfacial Fractures: Analysis of 33 Cases Treated Late

Dongmei He, Yi Zhang, Edward Ellis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the characteristics of delayed panfacial fractures and evaluate treatment results. Patients and Methods: Thirty-three patients with delayed panfacial fractures were treated in the Maxillofacial Trauma Center of Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology between 1998 and 2004. Each patient was examined by computed tomography (CT) scans before operation. For those who had no severe opening restriction, dental impressions were taken to fabricate dental casts. For those with severely comminuted fractures, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the facial skeleton were used. Re-establishing the continuity of the mandible was the first step and then used as a platform to reconstruct the maxillary fractures via maxillomandibular fixation after Le Fort I osteotomy. The third step was to restore the mid- and upper-facial width and projection by coronal approach to expose the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus and/or naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE) fractures. Results: There were 3 types of mandibular fractures that affected the treatment plan: 1) type I, mandibular body/symphysis fracture(s) (17/33, 51.52%); 2) type II, mandibular angle and/or condylar fracture(s) (6/33, 18.18%); and 3) type III, both mandibular body/symphysis and angle/condylar fractures (10/33, 30.30%). Fourteen cases were associated with NOE fractures (42.42%) and 3 cases had frontal sinus fractures (9.1%). Twelve cases had enophthalmos (36.36%) and 3 lost 1 eyeball. The order of treatment was dependent on the mandibular fracture type. For type I fractures, reconstructing the mandibular arch was the first step. For type II fractures, repairing the angle, ascending rami, and condylar areas was the first step. For type III fractures, when both mandibular height and arch were disrupted, freeing the malunited angle or condyle was the first step before restoring the mandibular arch form. Reconstruction of the mandibular height and projection was then carried out. For all 3 types, the second step was to restore the mid- and upper facial width and projection by reducing the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus or NOE fractures. Maxillary fixation across the Le Fort I level was the last step. Le Fort I osteotomy was used for all 33 cases. Bone grafts and soft tissue suspension also were used. Twenty-one cases (63.64%) had good results, 7 (21.21%) cases were acceptable, and 5 (15.15%) were not good. There were 7 cases (21.21%) that still had soft tissue problems that needed secondary operations. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the mandible first with Le Fort I osteotomy is a good way to treat delayed panfacial fractures. Computed tomography and 3D CT, model surgery, and occasionally 3D models are necessary aids for diagnosis and treatment. Soft tissue problems, including lacerations and asymmetries, were often the factors that caused an unfavorable outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2459-2465
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume65
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Le Fort Osteotomy
Mandibular Fractures
Frontal Sinus
Frontal Bone
Tomography
Mandible
Tooth
Jaw Fixation Techniques
Maxillary Fractures
Enophthalmos
Mandibular Reconstruction
Comminuted Fractures
Oral Medicine
Bone and Bones
Lacerations
Trauma Centers
Therapeutics
Skeleton
Suspensions
Retrospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Surgery

Cite this

Panfacial Fractures : Analysis of 33 Cases Treated Late. / He, Dongmei; Zhang, Yi; Ellis, Edward.

In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 65, No. 12, 12.2007, p. 2459-2465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6bbfd364410b4437ad74b04641b85da5,
title = "Panfacial Fractures: Analysis of 33 Cases Treated Late",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the characteristics of delayed panfacial fractures and evaluate treatment results. Patients and Methods: Thirty-three patients with delayed panfacial fractures were treated in the Maxillofacial Trauma Center of Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology between 1998 and 2004. Each patient was examined by computed tomography (CT) scans before operation. For those who had no severe opening restriction, dental impressions were taken to fabricate dental casts. For those with severely comminuted fractures, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the facial skeleton were used. Re-establishing the continuity of the mandible was the first step and then used as a platform to reconstruct the maxillary fractures via maxillomandibular fixation after Le Fort I osteotomy. The third step was to restore the mid- and upper-facial width and projection by coronal approach to expose the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus and/or naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE) fractures. Results: There were 3 types of mandibular fractures that affected the treatment plan: 1) type I, mandibular body/symphysis fracture(s) (17/33, 51.52{\%}); 2) type II, mandibular angle and/or condylar fracture(s) (6/33, 18.18{\%}); and 3) type III, both mandibular body/symphysis and angle/condylar fractures (10/33, 30.30{\%}). Fourteen cases were associated with NOE fractures (42.42{\%}) and 3 cases had frontal sinus fractures (9.1{\%}). Twelve cases had enophthalmos (36.36{\%}) and 3 lost 1 eyeball. The order of treatment was dependent on the mandibular fracture type. For type I fractures, reconstructing the mandibular arch was the first step. For type II fractures, repairing the angle, ascending rami, and condylar areas was the first step. For type III fractures, when both mandibular height and arch were disrupted, freeing the malunited angle or condyle was the first step before restoring the mandibular arch form. Reconstruction of the mandibular height and projection was then carried out. For all 3 types, the second step was to restore the mid- and upper facial width and projection by reducing the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus or NOE fractures. Maxillary fixation across the Le Fort I level was the last step. Le Fort I osteotomy was used for all 33 cases. Bone grafts and soft tissue suspension also were used. Twenty-one cases (63.64{\%}) had good results, 7 (21.21{\%}) cases were acceptable, and 5 (15.15{\%}) were not good. There were 7 cases (21.21{\%}) that still had soft tissue problems that needed secondary operations. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the mandible first with Le Fort I osteotomy is a good way to treat delayed panfacial fractures. Computed tomography and 3D CT, model surgery, and occasionally 3D models are necessary aids for diagnosis and treatment. Soft tissue problems, including lacerations and asymmetries, were often the factors that caused an unfavorable outcome.",
author = "Dongmei He and Yi Zhang and Edward Ellis",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.625",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "2459--2465",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Panfacial Fractures

T2 - Analysis of 33 Cases Treated Late

AU - He, Dongmei

AU - Zhang, Yi

AU - Ellis, Edward

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the characteristics of delayed panfacial fractures and evaluate treatment results. Patients and Methods: Thirty-three patients with delayed panfacial fractures were treated in the Maxillofacial Trauma Center of Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology between 1998 and 2004. Each patient was examined by computed tomography (CT) scans before operation. For those who had no severe opening restriction, dental impressions were taken to fabricate dental casts. For those with severely comminuted fractures, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the facial skeleton were used. Re-establishing the continuity of the mandible was the first step and then used as a platform to reconstruct the maxillary fractures via maxillomandibular fixation after Le Fort I osteotomy. The third step was to restore the mid- and upper-facial width and projection by coronal approach to expose the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus and/or naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE) fractures. Results: There were 3 types of mandibular fractures that affected the treatment plan: 1) type I, mandibular body/symphysis fracture(s) (17/33, 51.52%); 2) type II, mandibular angle and/or condylar fracture(s) (6/33, 18.18%); and 3) type III, both mandibular body/symphysis and angle/condylar fractures (10/33, 30.30%). Fourteen cases were associated with NOE fractures (42.42%) and 3 cases had frontal sinus fractures (9.1%). Twelve cases had enophthalmos (36.36%) and 3 lost 1 eyeball. The order of treatment was dependent on the mandibular fracture type. For type I fractures, reconstructing the mandibular arch was the first step. For type II fractures, repairing the angle, ascending rami, and condylar areas was the first step. For type III fractures, when both mandibular height and arch were disrupted, freeing the malunited angle or condyle was the first step before restoring the mandibular arch form. Reconstruction of the mandibular height and projection was then carried out. For all 3 types, the second step was to restore the mid- and upper facial width and projection by reducing the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus or NOE fractures. Maxillary fixation across the Le Fort I level was the last step. Le Fort I osteotomy was used for all 33 cases. Bone grafts and soft tissue suspension also were used. Twenty-one cases (63.64%) had good results, 7 (21.21%) cases were acceptable, and 5 (15.15%) were not good. There were 7 cases (21.21%) that still had soft tissue problems that needed secondary operations. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the mandible first with Le Fort I osteotomy is a good way to treat delayed panfacial fractures. Computed tomography and 3D CT, model surgery, and occasionally 3D models are necessary aids for diagnosis and treatment. Soft tissue problems, including lacerations and asymmetries, were often the factors that caused an unfavorable outcome.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the characteristics of delayed panfacial fractures and evaluate treatment results. Patients and Methods: Thirty-three patients with delayed panfacial fractures were treated in the Maxillofacial Trauma Center of Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology between 1998 and 2004. Each patient was examined by computed tomography (CT) scans before operation. For those who had no severe opening restriction, dental impressions were taken to fabricate dental casts. For those with severely comminuted fractures, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the facial skeleton were used. Re-establishing the continuity of the mandible was the first step and then used as a platform to reconstruct the maxillary fractures via maxillomandibular fixation after Le Fort I osteotomy. The third step was to restore the mid- and upper-facial width and projection by coronal approach to expose the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus and/or naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE) fractures. Results: There were 3 types of mandibular fractures that affected the treatment plan: 1) type I, mandibular body/symphysis fracture(s) (17/33, 51.52%); 2) type II, mandibular angle and/or condylar fracture(s) (6/33, 18.18%); and 3) type III, both mandibular body/symphysis and angle/condylar fractures (10/33, 30.30%). Fourteen cases were associated with NOE fractures (42.42%) and 3 cases had frontal sinus fractures (9.1%). Twelve cases had enophthalmos (36.36%) and 3 lost 1 eyeball. The order of treatment was dependent on the mandibular fracture type. For type I fractures, reconstructing the mandibular arch was the first step. For type II fractures, repairing the angle, ascending rami, and condylar areas was the first step. For type III fractures, when both mandibular height and arch were disrupted, freeing the malunited angle or condyle was the first step before restoring the mandibular arch form. Reconstruction of the mandibular height and projection was then carried out. For all 3 types, the second step was to restore the mid- and upper facial width and projection by reducing the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus or NOE fractures. Maxillary fixation across the Le Fort I level was the last step. Le Fort I osteotomy was used for all 33 cases. Bone grafts and soft tissue suspension also were used. Twenty-one cases (63.64%) had good results, 7 (21.21%) cases were acceptable, and 5 (15.15%) were not good. There were 7 cases (21.21%) that still had soft tissue problems that needed secondary operations. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the mandible first with Le Fort I osteotomy is a good way to treat delayed panfacial fractures. Computed tomography and 3D CT, model surgery, and occasionally 3D models are necessary aids for diagnosis and treatment. Soft tissue problems, including lacerations and asymmetries, were often the factors that caused an unfavorable outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36048998737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36048998737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.625

DO - 10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.625

M3 - Article

C2 - 18022469

AN - SCOPUS:36048998737

VL - 65

SP - 2459

EP - 2465

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 12

ER -