Kinematic study of the temporomandibular joint in normal subjects and patients following unilateral temporomandibular joint arthrotomy with metal fossa-eminence partial joint replacement.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study is to quantify the kinematics of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in patients following unilateral TMJ arthrotomy with metal fossa-eminence partial joint replacement and compare them with TMJ kinematics of healthy individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers and 13 female surgical patients (minimum 4 years postoperative) participated in this study. An electromagnetic tracking device was used to record the kinematics of the mandible relative to temporal bone during opening-closing, protrusive, and lateral movements. The mean linear distance (LD) traveled by condyles was compared between operated and normal subjects. RESULTS: Patients responded with statistically significant improvement in pain and jaw function questions. Mean satisfaction with the surgical result was 25.7 on a scale of 1 to 30. The LD measured for condyles during all 4 movements showed similar measurements. However, operated and unoperated condyles showed statistically significant motion values during opening and protrusive motion from each other and from normal subjects. In addition, contralateral condyles during lateral motion showed statistically significant values in operated, unoperated, and normal condyles. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the surgical reconstruction of the TMJ with partial joint replacement provided highly significant clinical improvement. Moreover, condyle and incisor kinematics were preserved to a significant amount as compared with the normal group. The difference in kinematic measurements between the operated and unoperated condyle was significant and secondary to previous joint disease and previous surgical intervention. These results should be evaluated by prospective studies in pre- and postsurgical patients.     

Application of a facial injury severity scale in craniomaxillofacial trauma.

PURPOSE: To establish a Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS) that correlates with patient outcome and provides a practical tool for communication between clinicians and healthcare personnel for management of facial trauma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) at Legacy Emanuel Hospital (Level One Trauma Center) in Portland, Oregon between 01/1993 and 6/2003 with facial fractures with or without concomitant non-facial injuries where identified retrospectively. The diagnosis and treatment of all facial fractures were conducted by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) service. The following data were collected; age, gender, mechanism of injury, detailed diagnosis of facial fractures, disposition, and the length of hospital stay (LOS). The hospital operating room charges (ORC) for the treatment of each patient's facial fractures were also obtained. We designed the FISS to be a numeric value composed of the sum of the individual fractures and fracture patterns in a patient. Not all fractures of the face are weighted equally in the FISS because not all fracture patterns are equal in severity. Individual fracture points within the scale were optimized to result in the highest correlation. RESULTS: A total of 1,115 patient admissions to the ED with blunt or penetrating maxillofacial injuries were identified and reviewed. Full information on operating room charges (ORC) was available for 247 patients (average age: 32, SD +/- 17; range, 2 to 84; male:female, 3:1; blunt:penetrating, 232:15). The FISS scores were calculated for each patient (average FISS: 4.4, SD +/- 2.7; range, 1 to 13). Hospital ORC for the treatment of each patient's maxillofacial injuries were obtained from the hospital financial services (average ORC: 4,135 dollars, SD +/- 2,832 dollars; range, 845 dollars to 18,974 dollars). A significant correlation was identified between the FISS and the ORC (R value = .82). The length of stay was significantly associated with the FISS (t = 4.7, 245 degrees of freedom, P = .000004). Although the association was statistically significant, FISS is not a very good predictor of length of stay. The correlation between the predicted and observed values was 0.38. There were 3 deaths among the 247 entries. Those 3 deaths had higher than average FISS scores, but the difference between the scores of survivors and non-survivors was not significant (P = .08). The number of deaths was small and a larger study would be required to resolve this question. CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a FISS that is easily calculated and reliably predicts the severity of maxillofacial injuries as measured by the operating room charges required to treat the facial injury. The scale is also an indicator of hospital length of stay. We anticipate this to be a valuable tool for assessment and management of maxillofacial trauma.     

Comparison of the severity of bilateral Le Fort injuries in isolated midface trauma.

PURPOSE: The Le Fort classification pattern established in 1901 by the French surgeon Rene Le Fort is commonly used in describing midface fractures. This frequently used classification system is based on predictable patterns of midface fractures initially described for blunt trauma. The purpose of this study was to compare the profile and outcome of patients with isolated bilateral Le Fort I, II, and III fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Legacy Emanuel Hospital (Level I trauma center) in Portland, OR, between December 1990 and December 2003 with isolated bilateral Le Fort I, II, or III fractures with or without concomitant nonfacial injuries were identified retrospectively using the Hospital Trauma Registry. Patients were classified into study groups I (n = 22), II (n = 22), or III (n = 23) corresponding to the Le Fort classification, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients had a diagnosis of isolated bilateral Le Fort I, II, or III fracture. The average Injury Severity Score (ISS) and hospital length of stay were 18.8 +/- 8.9 and 9.5 +/- 11.9 days, respectively. Blood alcohol was detected in 19 patients. Sixty-four injuries (95.5%) were secondary to blunt trauma, and the remaining 3 (4.5%), penetrating injuries. More than half of the patients (n = 35, 52.2%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 18 patients (26.8%) were transferred to the hospital trauma ward from the ED, and 14 patients (20.9%) were taken directly to the operating room. Fifteen (22.4%) patients required a tracheostomy secondary to their maxillofacial injuries. A statistically significant difference in the ISS was detected between patients with Le Fort I versus those with II or III injuries ( P < .0001). Patients with Le Fort II or III fractures had a significantly higher probability of ICU admission or immediate operative intervention. Ten patients (43.5%) with Le Fort III injuries required tracheostomy versus 3 patients (13.6%) with Le Fort I, and 2 patients (9.1%) with Le Fort II injuries. This was statistically significant. None of the patients with Le Fort I injuries had a negative outcome (death); however, 1 patient with Le Fort II injuries (4.5%) and 2 with Le Fort III injuries (8.7%) had a negative outcome. No statistically significant differences or emerging trends were observed among the 3 groups for age, gender, length of stay, number of operations, and number of associated injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher Le Fort injuries are characterized by an overall greater severity of injuries as measured by the ISS and the more frequent need for a surgical airway. Patients with Le Fort III injuries have a higher chance of requiring neurosurgical intervention or of experiencing vision-threatening ocular trauma. Immediate operative intervention and/or ICU care is more frequently indicated in these patients.