头部计算机断层扫描与颌面计算机断层扫描:面部成像检测面部骨折疗效的评估。

Eplasty Pub Date : 2022-06-20 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01
Zachary Gala, Di Bai, Jordan Halsey, Haripriya Ayyala, Kristin Riddle, Julien Hohenleitner, Ian Hoppe, Edward Lee, Mark Granick
{"title":"头部计算机断层扫描与颌面计算机断层扫描:面部成像检测面部骨折疗效的评估。","authors":"Zachary Gala,&nbsp;Di Bai,&nbsp;Jordan Halsey,&nbsp;Haripriya Ayyala,&nbsp;Kristin Riddle,&nbsp;Julien Hohenleitner,&nbsp;Ian Hoppe,&nbsp;Edward Lee,&nbsp;Mark Granick","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In an initial trauma evaluation, computed tomography of the head (CTH) is performed to assess for life-threatening intracranial injury. Given the high incidence of concomitant facial injuries, many facial fractures are diagnosed incidentally during this evaluation. Although maxillofacial CT (CTMF) is widely accepted as the most sensitive method for evaluating facial fractures, it is often excluded from the initial survey. Failure to obtain dedicated imaging can lead to increased costs related to a missed or delayed facial fracture diagnosis. Our study investigates the location and type of missed facial fractures on CTH by reviewing imaging data from patients who presented at a level 1 trauma center and underwent both CTH and CTMF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of all facial fractures diagnosed at a single institution from 2002 through 2016 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 18 years or older who received CTH and then subsequent CTMF. Patients who had either CTH or CTMF only or combined CTH/CTMF were excluded. The facial fractures were further subdivided by location.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 501 patients with 1743 total facial fractures. CTH successfully identified 788 (45.21%) fractures, versus 1743 (100%) for CTMF. The most common fractures, in both cohorts, were nasal bone (15.7%) and orbital floor (12.8%) fractures. Using CTMF to identify missed fractures on CTH, significant differences were noted in the following locations: anterior table frontal sinus, medial/lateral pterygoid, maxillary sinus, lateral orbital wall, zygomatic arch, palate, and all types of mandible fractures excluding the mandibular condyle.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CTH for initial trauma evaluation often misses facial fractures. CTH alone was only sufficient in detecting posterior frontal sinus, orbital (excluding lateral wall), and mandibular condyle fractures. In patients with suspected facial injury, dedicated imaging should be performed to detect the location and extent of injury because CTH inadequately identifies most facial fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":11687,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":" ","pages":"e22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9280063/pdf/eplasty-22-e22.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Head Computed Tomography Versus Maxillofacial Computed Tomography: An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Facial Imaging in the Detection of Facial Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Gala,&nbsp;Di Bai,&nbsp;Jordan Halsey,&nbsp;Haripriya Ayyala,&nbsp;Kristin Riddle,&nbsp;Julien Hohenleitner,&nbsp;Ian Hoppe,&nbsp;Edward Lee,&nbsp;Mark Granick\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In an initial trauma evaluation, computed tomography of the head (CTH) is performed to assess for life-threatening intracranial injury. Given the high incidence of concomitant facial injuries, many facial fractures are diagnosed incidentally during this evaluation. Although maxillofacial CT (CTMF) is widely accepted as the most sensitive method for evaluating facial fractures, it is often excluded from the initial survey. Failure to obtain dedicated imaging can lead to increased costs related to a missed or delayed facial fracture diagnosis. Our study investigates the location and type of missed facial fractures on CTH by reviewing imaging data from patients who presented at a level 1 trauma center and underwent both CTH and CTMF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of all facial fractures diagnosed at a single institution from 2002 through 2016 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 18 years or older who received CTH and then subsequent CTMF. Patients who had either CTH or CTMF only or combined CTH/CTMF were excluded. The facial fractures were further subdivided by location.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 501 patients with 1743 total facial fractures. CTH successfully identified 788 (45.21%) fractures, versus 1743 (100%) for CTMF. The most common fractures, in both cohorts, were nasal bone (15.7%) and orbital floor (12.8%) fractures. Using CTMF to identify missed fractures on CTH, significant differences were noted in the following locations: anterior table frontal sinus, medial/lateral pterygoid, maxillary sinus, lateral orbital wall, zygomatic arch, palate, and all types of mandible fractures excluding the mandibular condyle.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CTH for initial trauma evaluation often misses facial fractures. CTH alone was only sufficient in detecting posterior frontal sinus, orbital (excluding lateral wall), and mandibular condyle fractures. In patients with suspected facial injury, dedicated imaging should be performed to detect the location and extent of injury because CTH inadequately identifies most facial fractures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eplasty\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9280063/pdf/eplasty-22-e22.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在最初的创伤评估中,进行头部计算机断层扫描(CTH)来评估危及生命的颅内损伤。由于伴随面部损伤的发生率高,许多面部骨折是在评估过程中偶然诊断出来的。虽然颌面部CT (CTMF)被广泛认为是评估面部骨折最敏感的方法,但它经常被排除在最初的调查之外。未能获得专门的影像学检查可能会导致错过或延迟面部骨折诊断的费用增加。我们的研究通过回顾在一级创伤中心接受CTH和CTMF治疗的患者的影像学资料,调查了CTH上缺失的面部骨折的位置和类型。方法:回顾性分析2002年至2016年在同一医院诊断的所有面部骨折。纳入标准包括18岁或以上接受CTH和随后的CTMF的成年人。排除仅患有CTH或CTMF或CTH/CTMF合并的患者。面部骨折按位置进一步细分。结果:501例面部全骨折1743例。CTH成功识别788例(45.21%)骨折,而CTMF成功识别1743例(100%)骨折。在这两个队列中,最常见的骨折是鼻骨(15.7%)和眶底(12.8%)骨折。使用CTMF识别CTH上的遗漏骨折,在以下位置发现显著差异:前表额窦、翼状内/外侧、上颌窦、眶外壁、颧弓、腭以及除下颌髁外的所有类型的下颌骨骨折。结论:CTH对面部骨折的初步创伤评估常漏诊。单独CTH仅能发现后额窦、眶(不包括外侧壁)和下颌髁骨折。对于疑似面部损伤的患者,应进行专门的影像学检查以检测损伤的位置和程度,因为CTH不能充分识别大多数面部骨折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Head Computed Tomography Versus Maxillofacial Computed Tomography: An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Facial Imaging in the Detection of Facial Fractures.

Head Computed Tomography Versus Maxillofacial Computed Tomography: An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Facial Imaging in the Detection of Facial Fractures.

Background: In an initial trauma evaluation, computed tomography of the head (CTH) is performed to assess for life-threatening intracranial injury. Given the high incidence of concomitant facial injuries, many facial fractures are diagnosed incidentally during this evaluation. Although maxillofacial CT (CTMF) is widely accepted as the most sensitive method for evaluating facial fractures, it is often excluded from the initial survey. Failure to obtain dedicated imaging can lead to increased costs related to a missed or delayed facial fracture diagnosis. Our study investigates the location and type of missed facial fractures on CTH by reviewing imaging data from patients who presented at a level 1 trauma center and underwent both CTH and CTMF.

Methods: A retrospective review of all facial fractures diagnosed at a single institution from 2002 through 2016 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 18 years or older who received CTH and then subsequent CTMF. Patients who had either CTH or CTMF only or combined CTH/CTMF were excluded. The facial fractures were further subdivided by location.

Results: There were 501 patients with 1743 total facial fractures. CTH successfully identified 788 (45.21%) fractures, versus 1743 (100%) for CTMF. The most common fractures, in both cohorts, were nasal bone (15.7%) and orbital floor (12.8%) fractures. Using CTMF to identify missed fractures on CTH, significant differences were noted in the following locations: anterior table frontal sinus, medial/lateral pterygoid, maxillary sinus, lateral orbital wall, zygomatic arch, palate, and all types of mandible fractures excluding the mandibular condyle.

Conclusions: CTH for initial trauma evaluation often misses facial fractures. CTH alone was only sufficient in detecting posterior frontal sinus, orbital (excluding lateral wall), and mandibular condyle fractures. In patients with suspected facial injury, dedicated imaging should be performed to detect the location and extent of injury because CTH inadequately identifies most facial fractures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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