Facemask Removal Research Articles

Long-term stability of Class III treatment: Rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy

The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was 3-fold: (1) to compare the effects and long-term stability of protraction facemask treatment with untreated Class III controls, (2) to compare the long-term stability of early protraction facemask treatment with later surgical maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy, and (3) to determine whether early intervention with protraction facemask is an effective treatment modality or whether surgical treatment after cessation of growth should be advocated. The sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated white patients with Class III malocclusions characterized by maxillary deficiency. The protraction sample consisted of 17 children (8 boys, 9 girls). The surgical sample consisted of 17 adults (10 men, 7 women). The protraction group was also compared with a control group of white subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of functional appliance treatment or 2 weeks postsurgery), and T3 (7 years 6 months postprotraction or 1 year 5 months postsurgery). Means and standard deviations were calculated for descriptive cephalometric measurements. ANOVA was used to assess the differences between and within the protraction and surgery groups at T1, T2, and T3. The Tukey studentized range test was performed to determine the source of the difference. In addition, paired t tests were used to compare the differences between the protraction group and the matched controls as well as between the surgery group and the matched controls. In the protraction group, there was continued favorable growth of the maxilla, even after the removal of the protraction facemask. From T2 to T3, the maxilla continued to move anteriorly in the protraction patients more so than in the control groups, which had decreases in the intermaxillary measurements (ANB angle and Wits appraisal) over time. The surgical group remained stable from T2 to T3 in all measurements studied. The most striking findings of this study were the general similarity between the protraction and the surgical groups at T3 and the overall stability of both treatment modalities over time.

Vergleich von zwei Larynxmaskenmodellen zur Atemwegssicherung bei Patienten mit Immobilisation der Halswirbelsäule

Reduced cervical spine mobility can impair laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Supraglottic airway devices can be important alternatives for oxygenation under these circumstances. The Ambu laryngeal mask (ALM) and the LMA-Classic (LMA) are compared in patients with immobilization of the cervical spine. In 60 patients scheduled for elective ambulatory interventions, ALM or LMA were inserted after cervical immobilization with an extrication collar and assessment of laryngoscopic view. Insertion time (removal of facemask until first tidal volume), number of insertion attempts, airway leak pressure (cuff pressure 60 cm H(2)O), intraoperative complications and postoperative complaints were assessed. Demographical data, insertion attempts, insertion time (ALM 15.6+/-4.4 s, LMA 15.5+/-4.9 s) and airway leak pressure (ALM 25.6+/-5.2 cm H(2)O, LMA 26.5+/-6.5 cm H(2)O) were comparable. Traces of blood were found in 6 LMAs and 3 ALMs after removal, mild trouble with swallowing (visual analogue scale, VAS 2-4) in the recovery room and after 24 h were complaints by 1 ALM and 2 LMA patients. LMA-Classic and Ambu laryngeal masks are suitable for rapid and reliable airway management in patients with cervical immobilization.

Football Equipment Design Affects Face Mask Removal Efficiency

Football Equipment Design Affects Face Mask Removal Efficiency

Football Face-Mask Removal With a Cordless Screwdriver on Helmets Used for at Least One Season of Play

Football Face-Mask Removal With a Cordless Screwdriver on Helmets Used for at Least One Season of Play

Football Equipment Design Affects Face Mask Removal Efficiency

Background Researchers have investigated the performance of face mask removal tools for spine injury management in football but not the effects of football equipment design. Hypotheses Various styles or designs of football helmet equipment (helmets, face masks, loop straps) affect face mask removal efficiency. A cordless screwdriver performs more efficiently than do cutting tools. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Nineteen certified athletic trainers were randomly assigned to group 1 (cordless screwdriver and the FM Extractor) or group 2 (cordless screwdriver and the Trainer's Angel). Subjects randomly performed face mask removal for 6 conditions composed of helmet (3), face mask (3), and loop strap (5) combinations. Time, head movement, perceived difficulty, and success rates were measured. Results Multiple significant differences were found in time, movement, and perceived difficulty between the 6 helmet equipment conditions. The Shockblocker loop strap was consistently superior in all variables regardless of the tool used or the helmet it was attached to. The cordless screwdriver created less movement (mean range from any one plane, 2.8°-13.3°), was faster (mean range, 42.1-68.8 seconds), and was less difficult (mean rating of perceived exertion range, 1.4-2.9) compared to cutting tools (ranges, 4.4°-18.4° in any one plane, 71-174 seconds, rating of perceived exertion, 2.8-7.7). Trial failure was more common with cutting tools than with the screwdriver. Conclusion Differences in football helmet equipment affect face mask removal. The cordless screwdriver is more efficient than the FM Extractor and Trainer's Angel. Clinical Relevance Professionals responsible for the care of football athletes must be knowledgeable in the types of equipment used and the best option available for effective airway access.

PREFERENCE OF FACEMASK REMOVAL TOOLS AMONG CERTIFIED ATHLETIC TRAINERS

An issue of concern among sports medicine professionals is the barrier that a football facemask poses when trying to gain access to an athlete's airway. Currently, several different tools are being used to remove or retract facemasks when necessary. The goal of this investigation was to determine which of the four commonly employed facemask removal tools were preferred by Certified Athletic Trainers and in addition, how the type of tool influenced the duration of the facemask removal task. The four tools tested were the Facemask Extractor (FME), anvil pruners (AP), Trainer's Angel (TA) and PVC pipe cutters (PVC). Eleven certified athletic trainers used each of the tools in random order to retract a facemask under conditions that simulated a spinal cord injury. The subjects were instructed to stabilize the head during retraction, and the time from tool pick up to facemask retraction was recorded. The subjects completed a questionnaire which required them to rate their tool preference on a scale of one (most preferred) to four (least preferred). Scores were averaged and overall preference was determined. Results indicate that the AP (mean = 2.0) and FME (mean = 2.1) were the most preferred tools, followed by the TA (mean = 2.4) and the PVC (mean = 3.6). Relative to the duration of the task, the FME and the AP did not differ significantly. However, subjects performed the task significantly faster with the AP than with the TA or PVC. Additionally, performance with the TA was significantly faster than with the PVC. These results show that the FME and AP were preferred by the users, and both permitted the task to be completed faster than the other two devices. Based on the results, the FME would be a good choice for a facemask removal or retraction tool and the AP would be a desirable and less expensive alternative.

10 Questions about Football–Helmet and Face–Mask Removal: A Review of the Recent Literature

10 Questions about Football–Helmet and Face–Mask Removal: A Review of the Recent Literature