Motamedi Mohammad Hosein Kalantar
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah Medical Sciences University, Tehran, Iran.
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2011 Apr;4(2):212-6. doi: 10.4103/0974-2700.82208.
Treatment of maxillofacial firearm injuries is still controversial with regard to timing of management. We postulate that not all maxillofacial firearm injuries need be delayed and that many may be treated early. To this end, a 19-year retrospective study was undertaken seeking to evaluate patients treated for firearm injuries to the facial skeleton at our center. The criteria which dictated when to operate are presented as are the results, benefits, and outcomes of the patients treated acutely.
From 1991 to 2010, 51 patients with maxillofacial firearm injuries were treated; 30/51 patients received early primary repair and simultaneous open reduction for facial fractures. These underwent primary debridement and arch bar placement followed by open reduction of fractures (with or without osteosynthesis) and primary wound closure. Patient age ranged from 8 to 50 years, with a mean age of 24.4±7.8 years. Primary early intervention was done when there was no gross infection, no bone comminution or extensive soft tissue avulsion (precluding wound coverage), and when general health, concomitant injuries requiring more urgent attention or those requiring major grafts did not preclude this. Primary intervention included extensive oral and extraoral irrigation (dilute hydrogen peroxide + povidone iodide), debridement of the facial wound, removal of floating fragments (teeth particles, debris, and shell fragments) precluding viable bone within the wound, access to the bone, finding the scattered bone segments and putting them back into place to restore bone continuity. Projectiles beyond the wound were not searched for. Tooth roots within the alveolus were not extracted at this stage. In addition to arch bars, titanium miniplates or wire osteosynthesis was done when necessary. All wounds were closed primarily (using local advancement flaps when necessary) and all patients were placed on antibiotics (cephalosporin + aminoglycoside or ciprofloxacin) upon admission.
Of 51 patients, 30 were treated acutely and 21 warranted delayed intervention. In the acute-treated group, 6/30 patients had minor complications such as scarring and wound discharge. Early intervention for firearm wounds to the face was effective for facial firearm injuries in selected cases. This resulted in restoration of occlusion and continuity of the jaw, fixation of luxated teeth, early return of function, prevention of segment displacement and tissue contracture, less scarring, and decreased the need for major bone graft reconstruction later on. Those treated secondarily were only debrided and had arch bars placed. Definitive treatment of hard and soft tissue management was rendered in another subsequent operation. Bone reduction was more difficult because of scarring, and displacement of remaining segments. No significant differences were noted in terms of infection or other major complications.
Firearm wounds were associated with a high incidence of maxillofacial injuries requiring surgical intervention. Many may be treated definitively and acutely with procedures designed to repair both bone and soft tissue injuries simultaneously aiming to restore bony continuity, esthetics and function using the tissues at hand (especially in the mandible). Early treatment is advocated because the course of healing is not disrupted with another subsequent operation (in the same wound) and because it may decrease hospital stay without increasing patient morbidity in selected patients. Patients with residual defects can be treated later as out-patients.
颌面部火器伤的治疗时机仍存在争议。我们推测并非所有颌面部火器伤都需要延迟治疗,许多伤者可以早期治疗。为此,我们进行了一项为期19年的回顾性研究,旨在评估在我们中心接受面部骨骼火器伤治疗的患者。文中介绍了决定手术时机的标准以及急性期接受治疗患者的结果、益处和转归。
1991年至2010年期间,共治疗了51例颌面部火器伤患者;其中30/51例患者接受了早期一期修复及同时进行的面部骨折切开复位术。这些患者首先进行了初期清创和牙弓夹板固定,随后进行骨折切开复位(有或无骨固定)及一期伤口闭合。患者年龄在8至50岁之间,平均年龄为24.4±7.8岁。当不存在严重感染、无骨粉碎或广泛的软组织撕脱(排除伤口覆盖问题),且全身状况、伴有需要更紧急处理的损伤或需要进行大型移植的损伤不影响早期干预时,即进行早期一期干预。一期干预包括广泛的口腔内和口腔外冲洗(稀释的过氧化氢+聚维酮碘)、面部伤口清创、清除妨碍伤口内有活力骨组织的游离碎片(牙齿颗粒、碎屑和弹片)、暴露骨骼、找到散在的骨段并将其复位以恢复骨连续性。不寻找伤口外的投射物。此时不拔除牙槽窝内的牙根。除牙弓夹板外,必要时进行钛微型钢板或钢丝骨固定。所有伤口均进行一期闭合(必要时使用局部推进皮瓣),所有患者入院后均使用抗生素(头孢菌素+氨基糖苷类或环丙沙星)。
51例患者中,30例接受了急性期治疗,21例需要延迟干预。在急性期治疗组中,6/30例患者出现了诸如瘢痕形成和伤口渗液等轻微并发症。对面部火器伤进行早期干预在部分病例中对面部火器伤有效。这导致了咬合关系的恢复和颌骨的连续性、脱位牙齿的固定、功能的早期恢复、防止骨段移位和组织挛缩、减少瘢痕形成,并减少了后期进行大型骨移植重建的需求。二期治疗的患者仅进行了清创和牙弓夹板固定。在随后的另一次手术中进行了软硬组织的确定性治疗。由于瘢痕形成和剩余骨段的移位,骨复位更加困难。在感染或其他主要并发症方面未发现显著差异。
火器伤导致需要手术干预的颌面部损伤发生率较高。许多患者可以通过旨在同时修复骨和软组织损伤的确定性急性期手术进行治疗,目标是利用手头的组织恢复骨连续性、美观和功能(尤其是在下颌骨)。提倡早期治疗,因为愈合过程不会因后续在同一伤口进行的另一次手术而中断,并且在部分患者中这可能缩短住院时间而不增加患者发病率。有残余缺损的患者可作为门诊患者稍后进行治疗。