Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.

Midfacial Fractures: A Scoring Method And Validation On 117 Patients

F. Carinci, I. Zollino, L. Arduin, G. Brunelli, Francesco Pagliaro, R. Cenzi
Published 2007 · Medicine

Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
The midfacial region (MR) is located in the middle-third of the face, composed of several bones and surrounded by complex anatomical structures so that MR fractures (MRFs) often involve other parts of the face. A staging system for classifying MRFs is of paramount importance in order to exchange information among trauma centers. Le Fort described three lines of fractures but still there is no scoring method to stage MRFs. In this article, a classification for MRFs is proposed. It is based on Le Fort’s three lines and it defines seven facial units. MRFs can be staged as follows: F in situ = a fracture line without fragment mobility (i.e. greensticked); F1 = a fracture involving one MR unit (MRU); F2 = a fracture involving two MRUs; F3 = a fracture involving three MRUs; F4 = a fracture involving four or more MRUs or neighboring anatomical regions (i.e. mandible, orbit and skull). To evaluate the suitability of the proposed classification a retrospective study on a series of 117 MRFs was performed. Age, gender, new stage, clinical diagnosis at admission, type of surgery, and outcome were considered. A good correlation between the proposed classification and the studied variables was detected. In conclusion, the proposed classification is a simple and precise method of staging MRFs. It can summarize MRFs and be used in daily practice. It is our understanding, however, that a multi-centers study should be performed before the effectiveness of the proposed classification can be clearly stated.
This paper references
Classification and treatment of orbitozygomatic and orbitoethmoid fractures. The place of bone grafting and plate fixation.
J. It (1989)
Imaging of high-energy midfacial trauma: what the surgeon needs to know
K. Linnau (2004)
A comprehensive classification of craniofacial fractures: postmortem and clinical studies with two- and three-dimensional computed tomography.
C. Buitrago-Téllez (2002)
Orbital fractures: a new classification and staging of 190 patients.
F. Carinci (2006)
Traditional methods vs rigid internal fixation of mandible fractures.
J. Leach (1995)
Changing trends in the treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a 12-year evaluation of methods used.
N. Zachariades (1998)
Etude experimentale sur les fractures de la machoire superieure
R. Fort
Direct bonded orthodontic brackets for maxillomandibular fixation.
D. Utley (1998)
Comparison of the morbidity associated with maxillary fractures treated by maxillomandibular and rigid internal fixation.
R. Haug (1995)
Nasoethmoid orbital fractures: diagnosis and management.
L. Sargent (1999)
Use of a Resorbable Fixation Technique for Maxillary Fractures
B. Eppley (1998)
Maxillary and periorbital fractures
Stanley RB (1998)
Management of severe maxillo-facial injuries.
L. St (1983)
Nasoethmoid orbital fractures: diagnosis and management.
Sargent La (1999)
Role of Three‐dimensional Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Nasoorbitoethmoidal Fractures
D. Remmler (2000)
Posttraumatic trigeminal nerve impairment: a prospective analysis of recovery patterns in a series of 103 consecutive facial fractures.
G. Renzi (2004)
Naso‐Ethmoid-Orbital Fractures: Classification and Role of Primary Bone Grafting
Joseph S. Grass (1985)
Long‐Term Physical Impairment and Functional Outcomes after Complex Facial Fractures
J. Girotto (2001)
Prospective study on post-traumatic and postoperative sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve and infraorbital nerve in mandibular and midfacial fractures.
S. Schultze–Mosgau (1999)
Management of severe maxillo-facial injuries.
S. Lee (1983)
Modern Surgical Treatment of Complex Facial Fractures: A 6-Year Review
J. M. Jack (2005)

This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar