ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

Journal of Maxillofacial Trauma 2012 August;1(2):43-50

Copyright © 2012 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Analysis of maxillofacial trauma at Rohtak (Haryana), India: five years prospective study

Malik S. ¹, Singh V. ², Singh G. ¹

¹ Dental Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, B.P.S. Government Medical College for Women, Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat, Haryana, India; ² Dental Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Robtak, Haryana, India

AIM: The purpose of this study was to review the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma along with their clinical management and associated complications and the need for oral and maxillofacial surgery services along with other specialities to render the emergency services and definitive management to the maxillofacial trauma patients.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of all maxillofacial trauma patients reporting the Accident and Emergency Department and Outdoor Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, during 5 years period from May 2007 to April 2012. Data regarding prevalence, age and sex distribution, causes, types and site of injury, treatment modalities and trauma associated complications were reviewed and analyzed.
RESULTS: During five year period, 5962 trauma patients reported. The age range was 6 months to 73 years. Of the 5962 patients, 81.38% (4852) were males and 18.62% (1110) were females with the peak incidence occurring in the age group 17-34 years. Of the maxillofacial injuries, around 31% (1848) were soft tissue injuries, 27% (1610) were dental injuries, 30% (1788) were fractures and 12% (716) involving more than one type of injuries with 82% due to traffic accidents, 8.2% due to assaults, 4.2% were due to accidental falls, 0.65% due to sports and 3.3% to occupational and other injuries. Isolated mandibular fractures were most common 51.6%, followed by mid face fractures 36%, alveolar process fractures 12.4% etc. 58% patients were treated with closed reduction, 31% with open reduction and 11% were managed conservatively. Out of total patients,1.45% of the patients suffered post operative complications. We had assessed only few parameters pertaining to maxillofacial injuries. We had included in our study only those patients who reported to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Casuality and outdoor patients. Those patients who were fatally injured didnot figure in our study. Isolated nasal fractures might have gone to ENT Casuality, Orbital fractures along with eyeball injuries to ophthalmology casuality etc, which resulted in its reduced incidence.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of oral and maxillofacial surgery department alongwith other disciplinaries in the management of maxillofacial injuries. Moreover, it suggests the need for prioritization of rule and legislation changes and the continuing need to safety standards to prevent these injuries and treatment needs improvement.