排序方式： 共有18条查询结果，搜索用时 296 毫秒
1.
2.
Matteo Brucoli Paolo Boffano Irene Romeo Chiara Corio Arnaldo Benech Muhammad Ruslin Tymour Forouzanfar Thomas Starch‐Jensen Tanía Rodríguez‐Santamarta Juan Carlos de Vicente Johanna Snll Hanna Thorn Marko Tarle Emil Dediol Petia Pechalova Nikolai Pavlov Hristo Daskalov Iva Doykova Kadri Kelemith Tiia Tamme Andrey Kopchak Ievgen Shumynskyi Pierre Corre Helios Bertin Quentin Goguet Marine Anquetil Aurlien Louvrier Christophe Meyer Tadej Dov&#x;ak David Vozli
Ane Birk Boban Ani
i&#x; Vitomir S. Konstantinovic 《Dental traumatology》2020,36(3):241-246
3.
Nicolas Graillon Laurent Guyot Nicolas Sigaux Aurélien Louvrier Olivier Trost Jean-Christophe Lutz Jean-Marc Foletti 《Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery》2021,49(7):613-619
Whether to conserve or remove miniplates, widely used in oral and maxillofacial surgery, has not been agreed on in the literature. Complications such as pain, infection, and screw exposure or loosening have already been largely described. We present the consequences of a trauma recurrence on a mandible with miniplates. The data of 13 patients who had a mandibular fracture previously surgically treated with miniplates (ten mandibular fractures and three mandibular osteotomies) were analysed. All the patients were male; the average age was 32 years (range, 20–64 years). The mechanism of the second trauma was assault in most of the cases. The average time between the first osteosynthesis and the new fracture was 35 months (range, 6–128 months). The fractures occurred at a distance from the miniplates in all the cases except two. No plate fracture was reported. We hypothesised that miniplates reinforced the underlying bone, protecting it from fractures, and transmitted the forces to areas anterior or posterior to the miniplates or to the condyle. Thus, the risk of mandible trauma recurrence should be taken into account in the indication of plate removal, and the biomechanical consequences of the conservation of the miniplates should be studied. 相似文献
4.
Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi Aurélien Louvrier Giacomo Colletti Larry M. Wolford Federico Biglioli Marwa Ragaey Christophe Meyer Edward Ellis 《Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery》2018,46(3):398-412
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of facial nerve injury (FNI) when performing (ORIF) of mandibular condylar fractures by different surgical approaches.Materials and methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed that included several databases with specific keywords, a reference search, and a manual search for suitable articles. The inclusion criteria were all clinical trials, with the aim of assessing the rate of facial nerve injuries when (ORIF) of mandibular condylar fractures was performed using different surgical approaches. The main outcome variable was transient facial nerve injury (TFNI) and permanent facial nerve injury (PFNI) according to the fracture levels, namely: condylar head fractures (CHFs), condylar neck fractures (CNFs), and condylar base fractures (CBFs). For studies where there was no delineation between CNFs and CBFs, the fractures were defined as CNFs/CBFs. The dependent variables were the surgical approaches.Results
A total of 3873 patients enrolled in 96 studies were included in this analysis. TFNI rates reported in the literature were as follows: A) For the transoral approach: a) for strictly intraoral 0.72% (1.3 in CNFs and 0% for CBFs); b) for the transbuccal trocar instrumentation 2.7% (4.2% in CNFs and 0% for CBFs); and c) for endoscopically assisted ORIF 4.2% (5% in CNFs, and 4% in CBFs). B) For low submandibular approach 15.3% (26.1% for CNFs, 11.8% for CBFs, and 13.7% for CNFs/CBFs). C) For the high submandibular/angular subparotid approach with masseter transection 0% in CBFs. D) For the high submandibular/angular transmassetric anteroparotid approach 0% (CNFs and CBFs). E) For the transparotid retromandibular approach a) with nerve facial preparation 14.4% (23.9% in CNFs, 11.8% in CBFs and 13.7% for CNFs/CBFs); b) without facial nerve preparation 19% (24.3% for CNFs and 10.5% for CBFs). F) For retromandibular transmassetric anteroparotid approach 3.4% in CNFs/CBFs. G) For retromandibular transmassetric anteroparotid approach with preauricular extension 2.3% for CNFs/CBFs. H) For preauricular approach a) deep subfascial dissection plane 0% in CHFs b) for subfascial approach using traditional preauricular incision 10% (8.5% in CHFs and 11.5% in CNFs). I) For retroauricular approach 3% for CHFs. PFNI rates reported in the literature were as follows: A) for low submandibular approach 2.2%, B) for retromandibular transparotid approach 1.4%; C) for preauricular approach 0.33%; D) for high submandibular approach 0.3%; E) for deep retroparotid approach 1.5%.Conclusion
According to published data for CHFs, a retroauricular approach or deep subfascial preauricular approach was the safest to protect the facial nerve. For CNFs, a transmassetric anteroparotid approach with retromandibular and preauricular extension was the safest approach to decrease risk of FNI. For CBFs, high submandibular incisions with either transmassetric anteroparotid approach with retromandibular or transmassetric subparotid approach, followed by intraoral (with or without endoscopic/transbuccal trocar) were the safest approaches with respect to decreased risk of FNI. 相似文献5.
Aude Barrabé Elise Weber Alain Czorny Grégory Godfrin Christophe Meyer Aurélien Louvrier 《Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery》2018,46(9):1504-1510
Introduction
Unilateral coronal synostosis (UCS) is a complex craniosynostosis, combining malformations of the upper (frontal bone, orbito-naso-frontal bandeau (ONFB) ) and the middle thirds of the face. In our centre, the surgical correction consists in the repositioning of the ONFB in front of the zygomaticofrontal suture on the affected side. Defects in the corrections have been observed post-operatively for some patients with a persistent asymmetry in the side walls of the orbits. The purposes of our study were to perform an analysis of the frontal process of zygoma (FPZ) in children affected by UCS using preoperative CT-scans and to consider the modification of surgical techniques in order to achieve a better ONFB repositioning and thus, better symmetry.Material and method
The preoperative CT-scans of 13 children with UCS who underwent corrective surgery in our department from 2005 to 2016, were analyzed. After the selection of 6 morphological points in 2 and 3 dimensions using planning software, the sutures constituting the coronal arch and the sagittal distances between the coronal plane and the zygomaticofrontal sutures were analyzed. We compared the measurements on the pathological side to the healthy side, the non-affected side being the reference side. The patients included were those for whom the lack of symmetry between the healthy side and the affected side was more than 2 mm. Statistical analyses were carried out using a Student t-test.Results
Of the 13 children, 10 (1 day to 42 months old) met the inclusion criteria. The mean sagittal distance between the coronal plane and the healthy zygomaticofrontal suture was 33.8 mm ± 5.43 mm [range: 25.9: 40.9] [median: 34.3]. On the pathological side, the distance was 28.75 mm ± 4.76 mm [range: 20.8: 36.3] [median: 29.55], (p = 0.04).Discussion
There is a significant asymmetry between the FPZ on the healthy and the pathological sides in children affected by UCS. This asymmetry is variable, therefore justifying a personalized surgical correction whichtakes into account not only the shape of the ONFB but also the degree of asymmetry of the FPZ. A prospective study with immediate preoperative CBCT image acquisition and long-term clinical and radiological follow-up, will be our next step. 相似文献6.
7.
8.
9.
S.L. Assouline C. Meyer E. Weber B. Chatelain A. Barrabe N. Sigaux A. Louvrier 《International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery》2021,50(2):198-204
Intraoperative imaging is increasingly used by surgeons and has become an integral part of many surgical procedures. This study was performed to provide an overview of the current literature on the intraoperative use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in maxillofacial surgery. A bibliographic search of PubMed was conducted in March 2020, without time limitation, using “intraoperative imaging” AND “maxillofacial surgery” AND “cone beam computed tomography” as key words. Ninety-one articles were found; after complete reading, 16 articles met the eligibility criteria and were analysed. The results showed that the majority of the indications were related to maxillofacial trauma, particularly zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Final verification with intraoperative CBCT before wound closure was the most common use of this device. However, innovative uses of intraoperative CBCT are expanding, such as CBCT coupling with mirror computational planning, and even the combined use of initial intraoperative CBCT acquisition with navigation. Immediate, fast, and easy evaluation of bone repositioning to avoid the need for further surgical revision is the main advantage of this technique. Imaging quality is comparable to that of multi-slice computed tomography, but with lower radiation exposure. Nevertheless, CBCT is still not widely available in maxillofacial centres, probably because of its cost, and perhaps because not everyone is aware of its advantages and versatility, which are reported in this review. 相似文献
10.