MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/0736-4679(88)90148-5

Медицинская библиотека · The Journal of emergency medicine · 1988

A retrospective review of the relationship between facial fractures, head injuries, and cervical spine injuries.

Sinclair D, Schwartz M, Gruss J, McLellan B

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Facial fractures are common in the multiply-traumatized patient, and the results of previous studies that have examined the relationship between facial fractures, cervical spine injuries, and head injuries have produced conflicting results. A retrospective review of 1,050 blunt-trauma patients during a 40-month period at a regional trauma unit revealed 168 patients with facial fractures. The average injury severity score (ISS) of these patients with facial fractures was 31 compared with an average ISS of 25.6 for the entire group. There were 266 facial fractures in these 168 patients: mandible (n = 72), maxilla (n = 74), zygoma (n = 52), orbital (n = 46), nasoethmoidal (n = 20), and frontal (n = 2). There were seven (4%) cervical spine injuries, three of which were atlanto-occipital subluxations in patients who ultimately died. Of the four surviving patients, one had a cord injury. In contrast, 145 (85%) showed evidence of head injuries; 64 (38%) of these head injuries were serious and 17 of these patients required craniotomy. The relationship of facial fractures and cervical spine injuries may be over emphasized; head injuries, although frequently minor, are much more commonly associated with facial fractures.

Для цитирования: Sinclair D, Schwartz M, Gruss J, McLellan B. A retrospective review of the relationship between facial fractures, head injuries, and cervical spine injuries.. The Journal of emergency medicine. 1988. DOI: 10.1016/0736-4679(88)90148-5.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.