Fx-max-orb-slides-2004-0107

Fx-max-orb-slides-2004-0107 - Maxillary and Periorbital...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Maxillary and Periorbital Fractures Resident: Gordon Shields, MD Faculty: Francis Quinn, MD Grand Rounds January 7, 2003 Department of Otolaryngology, UTMB Types Mechanisms Associated Injuries Anatomy Classification Evaluation Treatment Types Types LeFort or Maxillary fractures Zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures Orbitozygomaticomaxillary complex fractures Mechanisms Mechanisms Assault MVA Gunshot wounds Sports Falls Industrial accidents Associated Injuries Associated Injuries Brandt et al 1991 59% caused by MVA had intracranial injury 10% caused by fall/beating had intracranial injury Associated injuries Associated injuries Haug et al 1990 402 patients Zygoma fractures: – – – – – Lacerations 43% Orthopedic injuries 32% Additional facial fractures 22% Neurologic injury 27% Pulmonary, abdominal, cardiac 7%, 4.1%, 1% Maxillary fractures: – Lacerations and abrasions 75% – Orthopedic injury 51% – Other facial fractures 42% – Neurologic injury 51% – Pulmonary 13%, abdominal 5.7%, cardiac 3.8% Ocular injury Ocular injury Al­Qurainy et al 1991 363 patients with midface fractures 63% minor or transient ocular injury 16% moderately severe injury 12% severe ocular injury (angle recession, retinal or vitreous injury, optic nerve damage – 90.6% of patients had some ocular injury – 2.5% lost vision in the affected eye – – – Facial Skeleton Facial Skeleton From: Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. Second Edition; East Hanover, Novartis,1997, plt. 1 Facial Skeleton Facial Skeleton From: Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. Second Edition; East Hanover, Novartis,1997, plt. 2 Orbit Orbit 7 bones composing the orbit: frontal, sphenoid, zygoma, maxilla, palatine, lacrimal, ethmoid From: Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. Second Edition; East Hanover, Novartis,1997, plt. 1 Forces of mastication Forces of mastication From: Banks P, Brown A. Fractures of the Facial Skeleton, Oxford, Wright 2001 pg.6 Facial Buttress system Facial Buttress system From :Stanley RB. Maxillary and Periorbital Fractures. In :Bailey BJ ed., Head and Neck Surgery­Otolaryngology, third edition, Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2001, pg 777. Facial Buttress system Facial Buttress system From: Celin SE. Fractures of the Upper Facial and Midfacial Skeleton. In: Myers EN ed., Operative Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, WB Saunders Company 1997:1143­1192. Facial buttress system Facial buttress system From: Rowe NL, Williams JL. Maxillofacial Injuries. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone,1985, pg 19. LeFort fractures LeFort fractures Rene LeFort 1901 in cadaver skulls Based on the most superior level Frequently different levels on either side LeFort I LeFort II LeFort III From: Dolan KD, Jacoby CG, Smoker WR. Radiology of Facial Injury. New York, MacMillian Publishing Company 1988, pg76. Modified LeFort Modified LeFort Classification From: Marciani RD. Management of Midface Fractures: fifty years later. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:962. From: Marciani RD. Management of Midface Fractures: fifty years later. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:962. Donat, Endress, Mathog Donat, Endress, Mathog classification From: Donat TL et al. Facial Fracture Classification According to Skeletal Support Mechanisms. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:1306­1314. Evaluation Evaluation ABC’s History Palpation of entire facial skeleton Occlusion Ophthalmologic exam / consultation C­spine Imaging – CT Imaging Imaging CT has surpassed plain film xray Allows precise diagnosis and surgical planning Axial and coronal cuts From: Som PM, Curtin HD. Head and Neck Imaging;. Fourth Edition; St. Louis, Mosby 2003, pg 386. From: Som PM, Curtin HD. Head and Neck Imaging;. Fourth Edition; St. Louis, Mosby 2003, pg 387. From: Som PM, Curtin HD. Head and Neck Imaging;. Fourth Edition; St. Louis, Mosby 2003, pg 393. Treatment of maxillary Treatment of maxillary fractures Early repair Single­stage Extended access approaches Rigid fixation Immediate bone grafting Re­suspension of soft tissues Maxillary fractures Maxillary fractures Steps of reconstruction­Rohrich and Shewmake Reestablish facial height and width IMF with ORIF of mandible Zygomatic arch reconstruction restores facial width and projection Reconstruction continues from stable bone to unstable and from lateral to medial Internal fixation vs. Internal fixation vs. traditional methods Klotch et al 1987 43 patients 22 treated with ORIF using AO miniplates 21 treated with combination of intermaxillary fixation, and/or interosseous wiring, and/or primary bone grafting Most severe injuries in rigid internal fixation group Shorter IMF, early return to diet, lower percentage of tracheotomy No plate infections Haug et al 1995 134 patients treated by maxillomandibular fixation or rigid internal fixation Postoperative problems in 60% vs 64% Complication rates similar Rigid fixation has benefits: – Airway protection – Enhanced nutrition – More rapid return to pretraumatic function Approaches Approaches Circumvestibular Facial degloving Bicoronal Transconjuctival From: Haug RH, Buchbinder D. Incisions For Access to Craniomaxillofacial Fractures. Atlas of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America 1993;1(2):23. From: Haug RH, Buchbinder D. Incisions For Access to Craniomaxillofacial Fractures. Atlas of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America 1993;1(2):25. Bicoronal approach Bicoronal approach From: Celin SE. Fractures of the Upper Facial and Midfacial Skeleton. In: Myers EN ed., Operative Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, WB Saunders Company 1997:1143­1192. From: Cheney ML. Facial Surgery: Plastic and Reconstructive. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1997. From: Celin SE. Fractures of the Upper Facial and Midfacial Skeleton. In: Myers EN ed., Operative Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, WB Saunders Company 1997:1143­1192. Treatment of Treatment of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex fractures Restore pre­injury facial configuration Prevent cosmetic deformity Prevent delayed visual disturbances Repair within 5­7 days allows edema to decrease and avoids shortening of masseter with lateral and inferior rotation Soft diet and malar protection Closed reduction ORIF with plating of one to four buttresses Provide fixation as necessary for stable reduction Ellis and Kittidumkerng 1996 48 patients Reduced fracture with Carroll­Girard screw – – – – – – 4.2% closed reductions 31.2 % one point fixation 27.1% two point fixation 27.1% three point fixation 10.4% four point fixation Used exposure and fixation needed to provide stable reduction Approaches to FZ buttress Approaches to FZ buttress From: Strong EB, Sykes JM. Zygoma Complex Fractures. Facial Plastic Surgery 1990;14(1):108. Approaches to orbital floor Approaches to orbital floor From: Strong EB, Sykes JM. Zygoma Complex Fractures. Facial Plastic Surgery 1990;14(1):109. From: Strong EB, Sykes JM. Zygoma Complex Fractures. Facial Plastic Surgery 1990;14(1):109. Orbital exploration Orbital exploration Shumrick et al 1997 97 patient with either ZMC or midface fractures All explored had significant traumatic disruptions, no enopthalmos or diplopia in those not explored Based on their 7 criteria 22 ZMC and 11 midface underwent orbital exploration Persistent diplopia which failed to improve in 7 or more days, positive forced duction testing, radiologic evidence of perimuscular tissue entrapment Cosmetically significant and clinically apparent enophthalmos associated with abnormal radiological findings Radiological evidence of significant comminution and or displacment of the orbital rim Radiological evidence of significant displacement or comminution of greater than 50% of the orbital floor with herniation of soft tissue into maxillary sinus Combined orbital floor and medial wall defects with soft tissue displacement noted radiologically on CT scans Radiological evidence of a fracture or comminution of the body of the zygoma itself as determined by CT Physical or radiological evidence of exophthalmos or orbital content impingement caused by displaced periorbital fractures Repair of the orbit Repair of the orbit Approaches – Transconjunctival with or without lateral canthotomy/cantholysis – Subciliary – Transconjunctival has lower incidence of ectropion/entropion Materials for Materials for reconstruction Autogenous tissues – Avoid risk of infected implant – Additional operative time, donor site morbidity , graft absorption – Calvarial bone, iliac crest, rib, septal or auricular cartilage Alloplastic implants – Decreased operative time, easily available, no donor site morbidity, can provide stable support – Risk of infection 0.4­7% – Gelfilm, polygalactin film, silastic, marlex mesh, teflon, prolene, polyethylene, titanium Ellis and Tan 2003 – 58 patients, compared titanium mesh with cranial bone graft – Used postoperative CT to assess adequacy of reconstruction – Titanium mesh group subjectively had more accurate reconstruction Soft tissue resuspension Soft tissue resuspension Wide exposure allows more accurate fracture reduction but may lead to problems in soft tissue covering of face Need to close periosteum and provide suspension sutures to prevent descent of soft tissues Conclusions Conclusions High index of suspicion for associated injuries­ especially ocular Assessment of buttress system Wide exposure via cosmetically acceptable incisions Rigid fixation Soft tissue resuspension ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/28/2011 for the course STEP 1 taught by Professor Dr.aslam during the Fall '11 term at Montgomery College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online