Julia L Lerner1, Joseph W Crozier2, Albert A Scappaticci3, Vinay Rao2, Albert S Woo2. 1. The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. julia_lerner@brown.edu. 2. Division of Plastic Surgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians who manage facial fractures often rely on radiologist interpretations to help with assessment and management. Among treating physicians, facial fractures are categorized into clinically relevant patterns of injury. On the other hand, while radiologists are unsurpassed at identifying individual breaks in the bone, larger fracture patterns are not always conveyed in radiology reports. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the frequency with which the terminology describing midfacial fracture patterns is concordant among radiologists and treating clinicians. METHODS: The authors identified patients with different patterns of midfacial injury including Le Fort I, Le Fort II, Le Fort III, naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE), and zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures. Plastic surgery consult notes and radiological imaging reports were reviewed for concordance in documentation of injury patterns. Identification of individual fractures consistent with the diagnosed fracture pattern was also recorded. RESULTS: Radiologists were noted to be highly successful in describing individual fractures of the facial bones, identifying at least two defining components of a fracture pattern in 96% of Le Fort, 88% of NOE, and 94% of ZMC injuries. However, when injury patterns were considered, only 32% of Le Fort, 28% of ZMC, and 6% of NOE fractures were explicitly identified in radiology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists are highly skilled in discerning individual fractures in facial trauma cases. However, less reliability was seen in the identification of fracture patterns in midfacial injury, with particular weaknesses in descriptions of NOE and ZMC fractures. This data suggests that greater focus on patterns of midfacial injury would improve the clinical applicability of radiological reports.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians who manage facial fractures often rely on radiologist interpretations to help with assessment and management. Among treating physicians, facial fractures are categorized into clinically relevant patterns of injury. On the other hand, while radiologists are unsurpassed at identifying individual breaks in the bone, larger fracture patterns are not always conveyed in radiology reports. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the frequency with which the terminology describing midfacial fracture patterns is concordant among radiologists and treating clinicians. METHODS: The authors identified patients with different patterns of midfacial injury including Le Fort I, Le Fort II, Le Fort III, naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE), and zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures. Plastic surgery consult notes and radiological imaging reports were reviewed for concordance in documentation of injury patterns. Identification of individual fractures consistent with the diagnosed fracture pattern was also recorded. RESULTS: Radiologists were noted to be highly successful in describing individual fractures of the facial bones, identifying at least two defining components of a fracture pattern in 96% of Le Fort, 88% of NOE, and 94% of ZMC injuries. However, when injury patterns were considered, only 32% of Le Fort, 28% of ZMC, and 6% of NOE fractures were explicitly identified in radiology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists are highly skilled in discerning individual fractures in facial trauma cases. However, less reliability was seen in the identification of fracture patterns in midfacial injury, with particular weaknesses in descriptions of NOE and ZMC fractures. This data suggests that greater focus on patterns of midfacial injury would improve the clinical applicability of radiological reports.
Authors: B L Markowitz; P N Manson; L Sargent; C A Vander Kolk; M Yaremchuk; D Glassman; W A Crawley Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 1991-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: I F Wilson; A Lokeh; C I Benjamin; P A Hilger; D D Hamlar; F G Ondrey; J H Tashjian; W Thomas; W Schubert Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Nicholas J Nissen; Zachary I Okhah; Marten N Basta; Sun Hsieh; Joseph W Crozier; Charles C Jehle; Vinay Rao; Albert S Woo Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: K E Follmar; A Baccarani; R R Das; D Erdmann; J R Marcus; S Mukundan Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 2.789