Chen Chen1, Yi Zhang2, Jin-gang An3, Yang He4, Xi Gong1. 1. Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. 2. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. Electronic address: zhangyi2000@263.net. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. 4. Attending, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To select a scoring system suitable for the scoring of maxillofacial trauma by comparing 4 commonly used scoring systems according to expert scoring. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects who had experienced maxillofacial trauma constituted the study cohort. Four commonly used systems were selected: New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS), Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score (MFISS), and Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score (MISS). Each patient was graded using these 4 systems. From the experience of our trauma center, an expert scoring table was created. After the purpose and scheme of the study had been explained, 35 experts in maxillofacial surgery were invited to grade the injury of the 28 patients using the expert scoring table according to their clinical experience. The results of the 4 scoring systems and expert score were compared. RESULTS: The results of the 4 scoring systems and expert score demonstrated a normal distribution. All results demonstrated significant differences (P < .01). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the MFISS and expert score was the greatest (0.801). The correlation coefficient between the NISS, FISS, and MISS and the expert score was 0.714, 0.699, and 0.729, respectively. Agreement between the standardized scores and the expert score was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots; the agreement between the standardized MFISS and expert score was the best. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the other 3 scoring systems, the correlation and agreement between the MFISS and expert score was greater. This finding suggests that the MFISS is more suitable for scoring maxillofacial injuries.
PURPOSE: To select a scoring system suitable for the scoring of maxillofacial trauma by comparing 4 commonly used scoring systems according to expert scoring. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects who had experienced maxillofacial trauma constituted the study cohort. Four commonly used systems were selected: New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS), Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score (MFISS), and Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score (MISS). Each patient was graded using these 4 systems. From the experience of our trauma center, an expert scoring table was created. After the purpose and scheme of the study had been explained, 35 experts in maxillofacial surgery were invited to grade the injury of the 28 patients using the expert scoring table according to their clinical experience. The results of the 4 scoring systems and expert score were compared. RESULTS: The results of the 4 scoring systems and expert score demonstrated a normal distribution. All results demonstrated significant differences (P < .01). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the MFISS and expert score was the greatest (0.801). The correlation coefficient between the NISS, FISS, and MISS and the expert score was 0.714, 0.699, and 0.729, respectively. Agreement between the standardized scores and the expert score was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots; the agreement between the standardized MFISS and expert score was the best. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the other 3 scoring systems, the correlation and agreement between the MFISS and expert score was greater. This finding suggests that the MFISS is more suitable for scoring maxillofacial injuries.
Authors: Gabriele Canzi; Paolo Aseni; Elena De Ponti; Stefania Cimbanassi; Fabrizio Sammartano; Giorgio Novelli; Davide Sozzi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Lucas M Ritschl; Matthias Wittmann; Achim von Bomhard; Steffen Koerdt; Tobias Unterhuber; Victoria Kehl; Herbert Deppe; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Thomas Mücke; Andreas M Fichter Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.964