Abstract

IntroductionPrevious reports indicated that there is geographic and sociodemographic variation in the epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures. Audit of maxillofacial injuries managed at any institution is therefore necessary to understand the trends and proffer strategies for prevention. We therefore embarked on this study to determine the pattern of maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries in our institution.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective review of information on demography, aetiology and type of maxillofacial fracture, patients' status, type of crash, level of consciousness and concomitant injuries. The data collected was analysed with SPSS Version 20.ResultsA total of 233 patients aged 2 to 66 years were reviewed. A higher male preponderance (M:F 3.4:1) was observed. Road traffic crashes (RTC) accounted for 78.5% of injuries. Motorcycle related crashes were responsible for 69.4% of RTC and 54.5% of all fractures. Fracture of the mandible (63.2% n=172) was the most predominant skeletal injury and the body (25% n=43) was the most common site of fracture while the zygoma (29%) was predominantly affected in the midface. Ninety three patients (40%) suffered loss of consciousness. The relationship between aetiology of injuries and consciousness level of the patients was statistically significant (p=0.001). Of the 43 patients who had concomitant injuries, craniocerebral affectation (60.5%) was the commonest.ConclusionRTC remains the major aetiology of maxillofacial fractures. The mandible was mostly affected and nearly half of the patients have associated loss of consciousness. There is need for continual advocacy and enforcement of laws on preventive measures among road users.

Highlights

  • Previous reports indicated that there is geographic and sociodemographic variation in the epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures

  • The epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures in different populations varies in type, severity and aetiology depending on the socio economic risk factors and cultural differences [9,10,11,12]

  • Motor vehicle (MV) crashes was responsible for 24% of all injuries in this study

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Previous reports indicated that there is geographic and sociodemographic variation in the epidemiology of maxillofacial fractures. Methods: We carried out a retrospective review of information on demography, aetiology and type of maxillofacial fracture, patients' status, type of crash, level of consciousness and concomitant injuries. Some studies indicated that assault is the leading cause of maxillofacial injuries in United States of America and most European nations [16,17,18], RTC remain the major aetiology in most developing countries including Nigeria [6, 19,20,21]. The present study was designed to analyse the pattern of maxillofacial fractures and associated concomitant injuries encountered in our institution for comparison with reports from other parts of the globe

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call