颌面骨折与电动和传统自行车事故相关。
Maxillofacial Fractures in Electric and Conventional Bicycle-Related Accidents.
机构信息
MD, PhD Student, Research Physician, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
MD, PhD Student, Research Physician, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
出版信息
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Aug;80(8):1361-1370. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.03.020. Epub 2022 Apr 6.
PURPOSE
With the increased use of both e-bike and conventional bicycle, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased accordingly. To determine whether there are differences in maxillofacial injuries between these 2 types of bicycle accidents, e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents were compared.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted for all the consecutive patients with maxillofacial injury due to e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents attending the emergency department of 4 hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2018 and October 2019. Primary outcomes are maxillofacial fractures present or absent and the severity of maxillofacial injury using the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS) after e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess differences in risk between an e-bike and conventional bicycle accident, where age, alcohol use, and comorbidities were added as covariates, for maxillofacial fractures, dental injury, and severe maxillofacial fractures.
RESULTS
In total, 311 patients were included (73 e-bikers and 238 conventional cyclists). Sex distribution was equal in both groups (45% male vs 55% female). The e-bike group was older (66 vs 53 median age in years, P < .001) and had more comorbidities (0 vs 1, P < .001), while alcohol use was higher in the conventional bicycle group (32% vs 16%, P = .008). e-Bikers sustained midfacial fractures more frequently (47% vs 34%, P = .04), whereas conventional cyclists more often had mandibular fractures (1% vs 11%, P = .01). Although median Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and FISS scores did not differ between e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents, severe maxillofacial fractures (FISS score ≥ 2) were observed more often in the conventional cyclists (45% vs 25%, P = .04). No significant differences in risk of midfacial, mandibular, and severe maxillofacial fractures were found between e-bikers and conventional cyclists irrespective of their age, alcohol use, and comorbidities.
CONCLUSION
Both the distribution and the severe maxillofacial fractures differed between the e-bike and conventional bicycle accident patients. Patient-specific characteristics, such as age, alcohol use, and comorbidities, may have a greater influence on sustaining maxillofacial fractures than the type of bicycle ridden.
目的
随着电动自行车和传统自行车使用量的增加，自行车相关事故的数量也相应增加。为了确定这两种自行车事故之间是否存在颌面损伤差异，对电动自行车和传统自行车事故进行了比较。
材料和方法
对 2018 年 5 月至 2019 年 10 月期间在荷兰 4 家医院急诊科就诊的因电动自行车和传统自行车事故导致颌面损伤的连续患者进行了回顾性队列研究。主要结局是电动自行车和传统自行车事故后是否存在颌面骨折以及使用简明损伤分级和面部损伤严重程度评分（FISS）评估的颌面损伤严重程度。使用二元逻辑回归分析评估了年龄、酒精使用和合并症作为协变量的情况下，电动自行车和传统自行车事故之间的颌面骨折、牙损伤和严重颌面骨折风险差异。
结果
共纳入 311 例患者（电动自行车组 73 例，传统自行车组 238 例）。两组的性别分布相同（45%男性 vs 55%女性）。电动自行车组年龄较大（66 岁 vs 53 岁，中位数，P < 0.001），合并症更多（0 vs 1，P < 0.001），而传统自行车组酒精使用率更高（32% vs 16%，P = 0.008）。电动自行车组更常发生中面部骨折（47% vs 34%，P = 0.04），而传统自行车组更常发生下颌骨骨折（1% vs 11%，P = 0.01）。虽然电动自行车和传统自行车事故之间的简明损伤分级和 FISS 评分中位数无差异，但传统自行车组更常发生严重颌面骨折（FISS 评分≥2）（45% vs 25%，P = 0.04）。无论年龄、酒精使用和合并症如何，电动自行车组和传统自行车组患者的中面部、下颌骨和严重颌面骨折风险均无显著差异。
结论
电动自行车和传统自行车事故患者的分布和严重颌面骨折类型存在差异。患者的个体特征，如年龄、酒精使用和合并症，可能比所骑乘的自行车类型对发生颌面骨折的影响更大。
Zotero 插件