Hernandez Rosa Jonatan, Villanueva Nathaniel L, Sanati-Mehrizy Paymon, Factor Stephanie H, Taub Peter J
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2016 Jun;9(2):134-40. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1570074. Epub 2015 Dec 22.
From 2002 to 2006, more than 117,000 facial fractures were recorded in the U.S. National Trauma Database. These fractures are commonly treated with open reduction and internal fixation. While in place, the hardware facilitates successful bony union. However, when postoperative complications occur, the plates may require removal before bony union. Indications for salvage versus removal of the maxillofacial hardware are not well defined. A literature review was performed to identify instances when hardware may be salvaged. Articles considered for inclusion were found in the PubMed and Web of Science databases in August 2014 with the keywords maxillofacial trauma AND hardware complications OR indications for hardware removal. Included studies looked at human patients with only facial trauma and miniplate fixation, and presented data on complications and/or hardware removal. Fifteen articles were included. None were clinical trials. Complication data were presented by patient, fractures, and/or plate without consistency. The data described 1,075 fractures, 2,961 patients, and 2,592 plates, nonexclusive. Complication rates varied from 6 to 8% by fracture and 6 to 13% by patient. When their data were combined, 50% of complications were treated with plate removal; this was consistent across the mandible, midface, and upper face. All complications caused by loosening, nonunion, broken hardware, and severe/prolonged pain were treated with removal. Some complications caused by exposures, deformities, and infections were treated with salvage. Exposed plates were treated with flaps, plates with deformities were treated with secondary procedures including hardware revision, and hardware infections were treated with antibiotics alone or in conjunction with soft-tissue debridement and/or tooth extraction. Well-designed clinical trials evaluating hardware removal versus salvage are lacking. Some postoperative complications caused by exposure, deformity, and/or infection may be successfully treated with plate salvage. We propose an algorithm using this review and clinical expertise. We also propose that a national databank be created where surgeons can uniformly compile their patient information and examine it in a standardized format to further our understanding of clinical management.
2002年至2006年期间,美国国家创伤数据库记录了超过11.7万例面部骨折。这些骨折通常采用切开复位内固定治疗。植入内固定物后,有助于实现成功的骨愈合。然而,术后出现并发症时,可能需要在骨愈合前取出钢板。关于挽救与取出颌面内固定物的指征尚无明确界定。我们进行了一项文献综述,以确定何时可以挽救内固定物。2014年8月,在PubMed和科学网数据库中检索到了考虑纳入的文章,关键词为颌面创伤、硬件并发症或硬件取出指征。纳入的研究观察了仅患有面部创伤且采用微型钢板固定的人类患者,并提供了有关并发症和/或硬件取出的数据。共纳入15篇文章。均非临床试验。并发症数据按患者、骨折和/或钢板呈现,缺乏一致性。数据描述了1075例骨折、2961例患者和2592块钢板,并非相互排斥。骨折的并发症发生率为6%至8%,患者的并发症发生率为6%至13%。综合这些数据,50%的并发症通过取出钢板进行治疗;在下颌骨、中面部和上面部均是如此。所有由内固定物松动、骨不连、断裂以及严重/长期疼痛引起的并发症均通过取出进行治疗。一些由内固定物外露、畸形和感染引起的并发症通过挽救治疗。外露的钢板采用皮瓣覆盖治疗,畸形的钢板采用包括硬件翻修在内的二次手术治疗,硬件感染单独使用抗生素或联合软组织清创和/或拔牙治疗。缺乏评估硬件取出与挽救的精心设计的临床试验。一些由外露、畸形和/或感染引起的术后并发症可能通过钢板挽救成功治疗。我们基于此次综述和临床专业知识提出了一种算法。我们还提议创建一个国家数据库,外科医生可以在其中统一汇编患者信息,并以标准化格式进行审查,以加深我们对临床管理的理解。