Srinivas M Susarla1, Gerhard S Mundinger2, Devin O'Brien-Coon1, Thomas B Dodson3, Paul N Manson4, Zachary S Peacock5, Amir H Dorafshar6. 1. Resident, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; Division of Plastic Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, MD. 2. Craniofacial Surgery Fellow/Acting Instructor, Division of Craniofacial and Plastic Surgery, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA. 3. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA. 4. Professor, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; Division of Plastic Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, MD. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Associate Professor, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; Division of Plastic Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: adorafs1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Management of zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures should be based on injury patterns and not on training background. This study assessed management decisions for ZMC injuries among surgeons with different training backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of surgeons who evaluated 5 ZMC injury cases. The primary predictor variable was training background: plastic and reconstructive surgeons (PRSs), craniofacial PRSs (c-PRSs), and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs). Other variables were years in practice, fellowship training, practice scope, and comfort with managing facial injuries. The primary outcome variable was management of the ZMC and orbital floor (operative vs nonoperative). Secondary outcome measurements were related to surgical approaches and fixation. Descriptive, bivariate, and regression statistics were computed. RESULTS: Twenty-one surgeons (7 PRSs, 7 c-PRSs, and 7 OMSs) with an average of 14.4 ± 12.6 years of experience provided a total of 105 treatment plans. There was significant agreement between c-PRSs and OMSs for management of ZMC and orbital floor injuries (rs = 0.70 and 0.76, respectively; P ≤ .001). PRSs did not have substantial agreement with c-PRSs or OMSs with regard to ZMC fractures (rs = 0.39 and 0.49, respectively; P ≤ .06), but significant agreement with regard to orbital floor injuries (rs = 0.70 and 0.76, respectively; P < .001). In a regression model, injury pattern was the only factor associated with operative management (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between OMSs and c-PRSs regarding the management of ZMC fractures and associated orbital floor injuries.
PURPOSE: Management of zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures should be based on injury patterns and not on training background. This study assessed management decisions for ZMCinjuries among surgeons with different training backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of surgeons who evaluated 5 ZMC injury cases. The primary predictor variable was training background: plastic and reconstructive surgeons (PRSs), craniofacial PRSs (c-PRSs), and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs). Other variables were years in practice, fellowship training, practice scope, and comfort with managing facial injuries. The primary outcome variable was management of the ZMC and orbital floor (operative vs nonoperative). Secondary outcome measurements were related to surgical approaches and fixation. Descriptive, bivariate, and regression statistics were computed. RESULTS: Twenty-one surgeons (7 PRSs, 7 c-PRSs, and 7 OMSs) with an average of 14.4 ± 12.6 years of experience provided a total of 105 treatment plans. There was significant agreement between c-PRSs and OMSs for management of ZMC and orbital floor injuries (rs = 0.70 and 0.76, respectively; P ≤ .001). PRSs did not have substantial agreement with c-PRSs or OMSs with regard to ZMCfractures (rs = 0.39 and 0.49, respectively; P ≤ .06), but significant agreement with regard to orbital floor injuries (rs = 0.70 and 0.76, respectively; P < .001). In a regression model, injury pattern was the only factor associated with operative management (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between OMSs and c-PRSs regarding the management of ZMCfractures and associated orbital floor injuries.
Authors: Ashton Christian; Beatrice J Sun; Nima Khoshab; Areg Grigorian; Christina Y Cantwell; Sean A Melucci; Allison C Hu; Catherine M Kuza; Michael E Lekawa; Jeffry Nahmias Journal: Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Date: 2021-06-03