Secondary Reconstruction of Orbital Walls after Craniofacial Trauma

Skull Base ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Neukam ◽  
E. Nkenke
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 274-283
Author(s):  
Dinesh Kadam

Primary restoration of the mandibular continuity remains the standard of care for defects, and yet several constraints preclude this objective. Interim reconstructions with plate and nonvascular bone grafts have high failure rates. The secondary reconstruction, when becomes inevitable, remains a formidable task. This retrospective study evaluates various issues to address secondary reconstruction. Twenty-one patients following mandibulectomy presented with various complications between 2012 and 2016 were included in the study. The profile of primary reconstruction includes reconstruction plate ( n = 9), reconstruction plate with rib graft ( n = 3), soft tissue only reconstruction ( n = 4), free fibula ( n = 2), inadequate growth of reconstructed free fibula during adolescence ( n = 1), nonvascular bone graft alone ( n = 1), and no reconstruction ( n = 1). All had problems or complications related to unsatisfactory primary reconstruction such as plate fracture, recurrent infection, plate exposure, deformity, malocclusion, and failed fibula reconstruction. All were reconstructed with osteocutaneous free fibula flap with repair of soft-tissue loss. All flaps survived and had satisfactory outcome functionally and aesthetically. Dental rehabilitation was done in four patients. One flap was reexplored for thrombosis and salvaged. The challenges in secondary reconstruction include difficulty in recreating true defects, extensive fibrosis and loss of planes, unanticipated soft-tissue and skeletal defects, reestablishing the contour and occlusion, insufficient bone strength, dearth of suitable recipient vessels, nonpliable skin, tissue contraction to accommodate new mandible, need of additional flap for defect closure, and postirradiation effects. Notwithstanding them, the reasonable successful outcome can be attainable.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Chul Choi ◽  
Hyun Gon Choi ◽  
Jee Nam Kim ◽  
Myung Cheol Lee ◽  
Dong Hyeok Shin ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik Mengga ◽  
Mendy Hatibie ◽  
Eko Prasetyo ◽  
Maximillian Ch. Oley

Abstract: Helmet can reduce head trauma as well as maxillofacial trauma due to motorcycle accident. This study was aimed to prove the effect of helmet and its type in reducing craniofacial injury. Any intracranial abnormalities were evaluated with the CT Marshall scoring system and maxillofacial abnormalities were evaluated with FISS. This was an analytical comparative study with a cross sectional design. The results showed that there were 72 patients with craniofacial trauma; 59 patients with intracranial abnormalities and 24 patients with maxillofacial abnormalities. There were 43.1% patients that wore helmet; 31.9% of them wore open-face helmet. Data were analyzed by using the unpaired t-tests. Based on FISS, the effect of helmet on maxillofacial injury obtained a t-value of 0.787 (P = 0.217) which indicated that there was no difference in FISS scores between patients wearing helmet and not. Based on the CT Marshall scoring system, the effect of helmet on the intracranial injury obtained a t-value of 1.822 (P = 0.036) which indicated that there was a difference in scores between patients wearing helmet and not. This meant that wearing helmets had some influence on the occurence of head injuries. Based on FISS, the impacts of full-face helmet and open-face helmet on maxillofacial injuries obtained a t-value of 1.890 (P = 0.034) which indicated that there was a difference in FISS between the two types of helmets. Based on the CT Marshall scoring system, the impacts of full-face helmet and open-face helmet on intracranial injuries obtained a t-value of 1.714 (P = 0.049) which indicated that there was a difference in CT Marshall scores between the two types of helmets. Conclusion: Helmet and its type, full-face and open-face, had some influence on the occurence of either maxillofacial or intracranial injuries.Keywords: craniofacial injury, motorcycle, helmetAbstrak: Penggunaan helm dapat mengurangi kejadian trauma kepala dan trauma maksiofasial akibat kecelakaan sepeda motor. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membuktikan bahwa pemakaian helm dan tipe helm berperan dalam menurunkan cedera kraniofasial. Abnormalitas intrakranial dievaluasi dengan skoring CT Marshall dan abnormalitas maksilofasial dievaluasi dengan FISS. Jenis penelitian ialah analitik komparatif dengan desain potong lintang. Hasil penelitian mendapatkan 72 pasien dengan trauma kraniofasial; 59 pasien dengan abnormalitas intrakranial dan 24 pasien dengan abnormalitas maksilofasial. Terdapat 43,1% pasien yang menggunakan helm; 31,9% menggunakan helm open-face. Data dianalisis menggyunakan uji t tidak berpasangan. Berdasarkan FISS, efek helm terhadap cedera maksilofasial mendapatkan t = 0,787 (P = 0,217) yag menunjukkan tidak terdapat perbedaan skor antara pasien yang menggunakan dan tidak menggunakan helm. Berdasarkan skoring CT Marshall, efek helm terhadap cedera intrakranial mendapatkan t = 1,822 (P = 0,036) yang menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan skor antara pasien yang menggunakan dan tidak menggunakan helm. Hal ini memperlihatkan bahwa penggunaan helm berpengaruh terhadap kejadian cedera kepala. Berdasarkan FISS, dampak jenis helm full-face dan open-face terhadap cedera maksilofasial mendapatkan t = 1,890 (P = 0,034) yang menyatakan terdapat perbedaan skor FISS antara pengggunaan kedua jenis helm. Berdasarkan skoring CT Marshall, dampak helm full-face dan open-face terhadap cedera intrakranial mendapatkan t = 1,714 (P = 0,049) yang menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan skor CT Marshall antara penggunaan kedua jenis helm. Simpulan: Penggunaan helm dan jenis helm (full-face dan open-face) memengaruhi terjadinya cedera maksilofasial dan intrakranial.Kata kunci: cedera kraniofasial, sepeda motor, helm


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document