Literature DB >> 35307279

Comparison of oral and maxillofacial trauma during the first and third lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

F A Puglia1, G A Chiu2.   

Abstract

The incidence and management of maxillofacial trauma was compared between the first and third lockdowns in the United Kingdom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From 6 January, 2021 to 8 March 2021, the units that had participated in the collection of data during the first lockdown were asked to update their information into the same database for the third. Nine units participated with 929 entries. Compared to the first lockdown, the number of patients whose treatment had been changed due to the pandemic reduced from 7.6% to 0.4% in the third lockdown. In the UK during the third lockdown there were higher numbers infected with COVID-19 and admitted to hospital than in the first lockdown. Despite this OMFS units that participated in the second study were able to continue the management of maxillofacial trauma without the pandemic affecting care.
Copyright © 2021 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Management; Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 35307279      PMCID: PMC8404392          DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0266-4356            Impact factor:   2.018


Introduction

Working in close proximity to known reservoirs of the SARS-CoV-2-virus (nose and nasopharynx) and the increased exposure due to aerosol-generating procedures make oral and maxillofacial surgical practices particularly sensitive to the COVID-19 epidemic. The first lockdown (from 26 March, 2020 to 1 June, 2020) and the initial implementation of practices to prevent the spread of the virus saw a complete reduction in elective OMF surgery. There was a substantial initial reduction of maxillofacial cases presenting to emergency departments (average 19.7%)3, 4 a change in the demographics and characteristics of the injuries and a change of practice, with an increase of non-surgical, conservative treatments.3, 4, 5 The pneumonia coronavirus disease (COVID-19) still continues to persist globally with sub-variants evolving. The United Kingdom (UK) has since implemented two more lockdowns: the second from 5 November, 2020 to 2 December, 2020, and the third from 6 January, 2021 to 8 March, 2021. A study looking at the management of oral and maxillofacial trauma in the UK was performed during the first lockdown and repeated during the third. Comparisons were made between the two episodes.

Methodology

The same methodology was applied during the two iterations of the study. Briefly, oral and maxillofacial units in the UK were asked to collect anonymised data on OMF trauma presenting during the third lockdown between 6 January, 2021 and 31 March, 2021 in an electronic database.

Results

Only nine units participated in the repeat of the study with 929 entries compared to 2229 in the first study. Table 1 and Figure 1 provide the comparisons of the demographics and aetiology of the injuries. Table 2 details the comparisons of the type of injuries and the treatment provided. Due to the effects of COVID-19 on the hospital service, in the first lockdown, 158 (7.6%) cases had their treatment changed (3.3%) or deferred (4.4%). However, in the third lockdown treatment was reported to have been altered only in four cases (0.4%). The injuries were an orbital floor fracture and three soft tissue injuries. Of the latter, treatment was deferred because of lack of theatre, and the patient left before being treated (due to waiting time). A lack of personal protective equipment was not cited as any cause for the altered practice.
Table 1

Comparison of the demographics and aetiology between first and third lockdowns


First lockdown
Third lockdown
No.No.
Units participated:299
 Entries2229929
Injuries25141180
Gender:%%
 Males63.066.1
Females37.034.9
Age:
 0-920.322.7
 10-197.98.8
 20-2915.915.6
 30-3913.015.4
 40-499.710.3
 50-598.69.4
 60-696.26.3
 ≥ 7016.211.1



Type of Injury:
 Soft tissue51.845.8
 Hard tissues (mandibular injuries)12.813.7
 Dental Injuries11.19.1
 Zygomatic complex fractures10.111.7
 Isolated orbital floor fractures9.610.8
 Nasal bone, LeFort/naso-orbito-ethmoidal fractures4.59



Aetiology of injury:
 Fall38.142.4
 Soft tissue45.755.7
 Dental injuries48.947.7
Alleged assaults22.924.5
 Fractures8064.9
 Domestic violence63.5
Sport related2013.2
 Soft tissue injuries5750.9
 Facial fractures2533.1
 Dental injuries1816.0
Figure 1

Mirror graph of the aetiology and type of injury sustained (2020 vs. 2021)

Table 2

Comparison of the type of injury and care provided between first and third lockdown. Unless otherwise indicated, data are percentages.

VariableFirst lockdown (n=2229)Third lockdown (n=929)
Soft tissue injuries:
 Steri-strips and glue9077
 Wound exploration/arrest of haemorrhage115.2
 Treated under LA5554.5
 Treated under GA1921.5
Mandibular fractures:
 Open reduction internal fixation5865.4
 Closed management (arch-bars, inter-maxillary fixation)2512
 Median (range) LOS (days)2 (2-42)0 (0-41)
Zygomatic fractures:
 No intervention6865.2
 Opened, reduced and plated1021
 Closed reduction1010.9
 Treatment was deferred60
Orbital floor fractures:
 No intervention85.269.3
 Deferred until after lockdown2.11.6
 Surgical treatment (exploration/repair)9.120.5
Dental injuries:
 No intervention3959.8
 Non-surgically (splinting of teeth)2520.6
 Needed extraction1615.9
Comparison of the demographics and aetiology between first and third lockdowns Mirror graph of the aetiology and type of injury sustained (2020 vs. 2021) Comparison of the type of injury and care provided between first and third lockdown. Unless otherwise indicated, data are percentages. When asked about COVID-19 symptoms, testing and vaccinations, data were not reported for a lot of patients (31.2%, 32.4%, and 63.0%, respectively). When available, patients did not present with COVID symptoms (68.2%), had been recently tested (43.8%), and just over 6% of patients had had at least one dose of vaccine.

Discussion

The demographic characteristics and the type and aetiology of the injuries were relatively similar between the first and third lockdowns. There were, however, some notable differences. The incidence of injuries in the above 70 years-of-age group, the number of soft tissue injuries, of facial fractures resulting from an alleged assault and of sports related injuries decreased by 5%, 6%, 15.1%, and 6.8%, respectively. In contrast, the number of falls resulting in a facial injury increased by 4.3%. It is difficult to interpret if the weather had any impact on the changes with the first lockdown being in the late spring and summer whilst the third lockdown was in the winter months. In the UK, at the height of the first lockdown (16 April 2020) 21,687 patients had been admitted into hospital with COVID-19, of these 3,325 patients were on mechanical ventilation. In comparison, at the height of the third lock down (19 January 2021) 39,254 patient were admitted with 4,076 patients on mechanical ventilation. This represents an increase of 81% and 22%, respectively. Thus, it would be expected that this increase in admissions rates would have diverted more resources (both equipment and staffing) and further restricted the management of non-COVID-19 patients. Despite this, from the data collected, it would appear that management of oral and maxillofacial trauma had returned to similar treatment principles as prior to the pandemic. In the third lockdown, a higher percentage of mandibular fractures were treated with an open approach (ORIF); conversely the proportion of fractures that were treated via a closed approach decreased by half. There was also a notable increase in surgical management of fractured zygomas and orbital floors, which had also been noted by Blackhall et al between the first and second lockdowns in the UK. This is also re-emphasised as the length of stay of mandibular fractures decreased from two days during the first lockdown to a median of zero in the third lockdown. Why was the management of OMFS trauma able to return to pre-pandemic principles? By the time of the third lockdown, a number guidance documents had been published at local and national levels9, 10 resulting in multiple standard operating procedures (SOPs) that Trusts and surgical specialities could follow to mitigate the risks of viral transmission and those associated with aerosol generating procedures. Moreover, the availability of rapid swab testing within hospital and the provision of adequate personal protective equipment (with most clinicians having been fit tested with filtering face piece (FFP) masks level 3 or higher) could also partially explain this return to ‘normal’. Assessments of adequate air exchange, ventilation frequencies and fallow times would have been complied with and allowed further guidance. As elective activity would still have been reduced, qualified clinicians would have been available to operate on trauma patients more effectively.

Conclusion

Despite the significant increase in admissions of patients into hospital with COVID-19 and on mechanical ventilation during the third lockdown the principles of the management of OMF trauma returned to that of the pre-pandemic era. There was a significant drop in the number of patients whose OMF management was altered as a result of COVID-19. OMFS units have been resilient by maintaining the primary principles of trauma management through this difficult time with little compromise.
NHS Ayrshire & ArranDebbie BoydLouisa McCaffreyDrazsen VuityStuart Hislop
East Lancashire Hospitals NHS TrustGeoff ChiuFaye DoughtyAshika ShajahanAnam IbrarFarhana NaseemKafeel Mirza
King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustKathleen FanNermin HayekBradley John StoreyNayan Atul PatelFuad AhmedHinali Patel
London North West University Healthcare NHS TrustIndran BalasundaramKohmal SolankiRebecca ExleyDhulshan PreenaHussein MohammedbhaiSagar PatelSancia FernandoJulian LeowRishi KariaIoanna PolitiAnna SinyangweRichard AckroydRavi PancholiMaryam BenaniMariam JawadTun WildanSamantha Opatha
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustMichael HoPaul SextonStephanie MilneJames DouglasJames CookJames BarracloughMichael BlackwellFrances CollettAmine AnouarMostafa Gaafar MansourAhmed ElsafiEmma WalshawChristopher Alexander JefferiesImaan KhalidSandeep IyerConor GordonJiten Parmar
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustRory O'ConnorFlora MenziesAdele KeltzChun Ho (Brian) WongSimran MannKiran Nandhra
South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation TrustMike NugentKatrina Denholm
University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustN/AMariana BosovYen Lin
South Eastern Health & Social Care TrustKerry O'BrienNicola McCurleyDara Murphy
  6 in total

1.  COVID-19 social-distancing measures altered the epidemiology of facial injury: a United Kingdom-Australia comparative study.

Authors:  G R Hoffman; G M Walton; P Narelda; M M Qiu; A Alajami
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 1.651

2.  Comparison of provision of maxillofacial emergency service during the two COVID-19 national lockdowns in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  K K Blackhall; I P Downie; S Walsh; R Burhan; P Ramchandani; A Kusanale; B Srinivasan; P A Brennan; R P Singh
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 1.651

3.  How has COVID-19 affected surgical practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the East Midlands, UK?

Authors:  Asad Ahmed; Kate Evans; Sujeev Rajapakse
Journal:  Surgeon       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 2.392

Review 4.  Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Khai Tran; Karen Cimon; Melissa Severn; Carmem L Pessoa-Silva; John Conly
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Management of oral and maxillofacial trauma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  F A Puglia; A Hills; B Dawoud; P Magennis; G A Chiu
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 1.651

6.  Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and associated lockdown measures on attendances at emergency departments in English hospitals: A retrospective database study.

Authors:  Steven Wyatt; Mohammed A Mohammed; Elizabeth Fisher; Ruth McConkey; Peter Spilsbury
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2021-01-13
  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Impact of COVID19 on Maxillofacial Fractures in the Province of L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy. Review of 296 Patients Treated With Statistical Comparison of the Two-Year Pre-COVID19 and COVID19.

Authors:  Filippo Giovannetti; Ettore Lupi; Danilo Di Giorgio; Secondo Scarsella; Antonio Oliva; Desiderio Di Fabio; Paolo Prata; Giada Petricca; Valentino Valentini
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 1.172

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.