Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Review of Maxillofacial Hardware Complications and Indications for Salvage

Review of Maxillofacial Hardware Complications and Indications for Salvage Abstract 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Review of Maxillofacial Hardware Complications and Indications for Salvage

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/review-of-maxillofacial-hardware-complications-and-indications-for-4oH4tDqHds

References (20)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 2016 AO Foundation, AOCMF
ISSN
1943-3875
eISSN
1943-3883
DOI
10.1055/s-0035-1570074
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Journal

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jun 1, 2016

Keywords: maxillofacial; hardware; complications; salvage

There are no references for this article.