Imaging in Simple Nasal Trauma. Is Current Practice Uniform Worldwide? –A Survey of Global Practices

R. Chawla, M. Perry
{"title":"Imaging in Simple Nasal Trauma. Is Current Practice Uniform Worldwide? –A Survey of Global Practices","authors":"R. Chawla, M. Perry","doi":"10.33552/ojor.2019.01.000512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Currently in the UK, it is accepted that imaging is no longer routinely undertaken if nasal injuries are suspected clinically. The argument for this is that it does not affect management in a clinically obvious fracture. Occasionally, nasal and septal fractures may be an incidental finding following CT head or facial bones and this can opportunistically help plan treatment. Whilst this rationale for a relatively straight forward clinical problem is generally agreed within the UK, anecdotally it appeared that this is not always the case overseas. We therefore set out to see if there was indeed a significant diversity of opinion in the assessment of what is essentially a ‘simple’ injury. Methodology: A questionnaire was sent to surgeons across the globe. Questions included the role of imaging in the assessment of acute nasal fractures, experience of ORIF and imaging of secondary nasal deformity in their day-to-day clinical practice. Results: 343 responses were received from 95 countries from a range of specialties: A&E, plastic surgery, ENT, OMFS and general surgery. Interestingly, in many countries plain films are still undertaken in the assessment of simple acute nasal trauma. CT imaging is occasionally performed for secondary corrective procedures. Conclusion: Internationally, the practice and need for imaging in the assessment of nasal injuries vary greatly. Even in 2018, there still does not appear to be universally agreed diagnostic pathways for what most clinicians would consider to be a common and simple injury. Historic practice and personal opinion seem to still trump any evidence base.","PeriodicalId":365490,"journal":{"name":"Online Journal of Otolaryngology and Rhinology","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online Journal of Otolaryngology and Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33552/ojor.2019.01.000512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently in the UK, it is accepted that imaging is no longer routinely undertaken if nasal injuries are suspected clinically. The argument for this is that it does not affect management in a clinically obvious fracture. Occasionally, nasal and septal fractures may be an incidental finding following CT head or facial bones and this can opportunistically help plan treatment. Whilst this rationale for a relatively straight forward clinical problem is generally agreed within the UK, anecdotally it appeared that this is not always the case overseas. We therefore set out to see if there was indeed a significant diversity of opinion in the assessment of what is essentially a ‘simple’ injury. Methodology: A questionnaire was sent to surgeons across the globe. Questions included the role of imaging in the assessment of acute nasal fractures, experience of ORIF and imaging of secondary nasal deformity in their day-to-day clinical practice. Results: 343 responses were received from 95 countries from a range of specialties: A&E, plastic surgery, ENT, OMFS and general surgery. Interestingly, in many countries plain films are still undertaken in the assessment of simple acute nasal trauma. CT imaging is occasionally performed for secondary corrective procedures. Conclusion: Internationally, the practice and need for imaging in the assessment of nasal injuries vary greatly. Even in 2018, there still does not appear to be universally agreed diagnostic pathways for what most clinicians would consider to be a common and simple injury. Historic practice and personal opinion seem to still trump any evidence base.
单纯性鼻外伤的影像学分析。现行做法是全球统一的吗?-全球实践调查
背景:目前在英国,如果临床怀疑鼻腔损伤,影像学检查已不再是常规检查。这样做的理由是,它不会影响临床明显骨折的治疗。偶尔,鼻和鼻中隔骨折可能是头部或面部骨骼CT后偶然发现的,这可以机会性地帮助计划治疗。虽然这种相对直接的临床问题的基本原理在英国得到普遍认同,但有趣的是,在海外似乎并不总是如此。因此,我们开始看看在评估什么是本质上的“简单”伤害时,是否确实存在显著的意见分歧。方法:向全球的外科医生发送了一份调查问卷。问题包括影像学在评估急性鼻骨折中的作用,ORIF的经验以及继发性鼻畸形的影像学在日常临床实践中的应用。结果:我们收到了来自95个国家的343份回复,涉及的专业包括:急诊科、整形外科、耳鼻喉科、OMFS和普通外科。有趣的是,在许多国家,在评估单纯急性鼻外伤时仍采用平片。CT成像偶尔用于二次矫正手术。结论:国际上对鼻部损伤的影像学评估方法和需求差异较大。即使在2018年,对于大多数临床医生认为常见和简单的损伤,似乎仍然没有普遍认可的诊断途径。历史实践和个人观点似乎仍然胜过任何证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信