全面骨折手术的顺序:文献回顾和个人偏好。

Jae Hee Yoon, Dong Hee Kang, Hyonsurk Kim
{"title":"全面骨折手术的顺序:文献回顾和个人偏好。","authors":"Jae Hee Yoon,&nbsp;Dong Hee Kang,&nbsp;Hyonsurk Kim","doi":"10.7181/acfs.2022.00976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treating panfacial fractures (PFFs) can be extremely difficult even for experienced surgeons. Although several authors have attempted to systemize the surgical approach, performing surgery by applying a unidirectional sequence is much more difficult in practice. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on PFF surgery sequence and to understand how different surgical specialists-plastic reconstructive surgery (PRS) and oral maxillofacial surgery (OMS)-chose sequence and review PFFs fixation sequence in clinical cases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were scoured for publications published up until May 2020. Data extracted from the studies using standard templates included fracture part, fixation sequence, originating specialist, and the countries. Bibliographic details like author and year of publication were also extracted. Also, we reviewed the data for PFFs patients in the Trauma Registry System of Dankook University Hospital from 2011 to 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 240 articles were identified. This study comprised 22 studies after screening and full-text analysis. Sixteen studies (12 OMS specialists and 4 PRS specialists) used a \"bottom-top\" approach, whereas three studies (1 OMS specialist and 2 PRS specialists) used a \"top-bottom\" method. However, three studies (only OMS specialists) reported on both sequences. In our hospital, there were a total of 124 patients with PFF who were treated during 2011 to 2021; 64 (51.6%) were in upper-middle parts, 52 (41.9%) were in mid-lower parts, and eight (6.5%) were in three parts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bottom-top sequencing was mainly used in OMS specialists, and top-bottom sequencing was used at a similar rate by two specialists in literature review. In our experience, however, it was hard to consistently implement unidirectional sequence suggested by a literature review. We realigned the reliable and stable buttresses first with tailoring individually for each patient, rather than proceeding in the unidirectional sequence like bottom-top or top-bottom.</p>","PeriodicalId":52238,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/34/ca/acfs-2022-00976.PMC9816638.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sequencing of panfacial fracture surgery: a literature review and personal preference.\",\"authors\":\"Jae Hee Yoon,&nbsp;Dong Hee Kang,&nbsp;Hyonsurk Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.7181/acfs.2022.00976\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treating panfacial fractures (PFFs) can be extremely difficult even for experienced surgeons. Although several authors have attempted to systemize the surgical approach, performing surgery by applying a unidirectional sequence is much more difficult in practice. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on PFF surgery sequence and to understand how different surgical specialists-plastic reconstructive surgery (PRS) and oral maxillofacial surgery (OMS)-chose sequence and review PFFs fixation sequence in clinical cases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were scoured for publications published up until May 2020. Data extracted from the studies using standard templates included fracture part, fixation sequence, originating specialist, and the countries. Bibliographic details like author and year of publication were also extracted. Also, we reviewed the data for PFFs patients in the Trauma Registry System of Dankook University Hospital from 2011 to 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 240 articles were identified. This study comprised 22 studies after screening and full-text analysis. Sixteen studies (12 OMS specialists and 4 PRS specialists) used a \\\"bottom-top\\\" approach, whereas three studies (1 OMS specialist and 2 PRS specialists) used a \\\"top-bottom\\\" method. However, three studies (only OMS specialists) reported on both sequences. In our hospital, there were a total of 124 patients with PFF who were treated during 2011 to 2021; 64 (51.6%) were in upper-middle parts, 52 (41.9%) were in mid-lower parts, and eight (6.5%) were in three parts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bottom-top sequencing was mainly used in OMS specialists, and top-bottom sequencing was used at a similar rate by two specialists in literature review. In our experience, however, it was hard to consistently implement unidirectional sequence suggested by a literature review. We realigned the reliable and stable buttresses first with tailoring individually for each patient, rather than proceeding in the unidirectional sequence like bottom-top or top-bottom.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/34/ca/acfs-2022-00976.PMC9816638.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2022.00976\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2022.00976","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:治疗全面骨折(pff)是非常困难的,即使是经验丰富的外科医生。虽然有几位作者尝试系统化手术入路,但在实践中,通过应用单向序列进行手术要困难得多。本研究的目的是回顾关于PFF手术顺序的文献,了解不同外科专家-整形重建外科(PRS)和口腔颌面外科(OMS)-在临床病例中如何选择顺序和审查PFF固定顺序。方法:检索PubMed和Google Scholar数据库,检索截至2020年5月发表的出版物。从使用标准模板的研究中提取的数据包括骨折部位、固定顺序、起始专家和国家。参考书目的细节,如作者和出版年份也被提取出来。此外,我们回顾了2011年至2021年檀国大学医院创伤登记系统中pff患者的数据。结果:共鉴定出240篇文献。本研究经筛选和全文分析共纳入22项研究。16项研究(12名OMS专家和4名PRS专家)使用了“自下而上”的方法,而3项研究(1名OMS专家和2名PRS专家)使用了“自上而下”的方法。然而,三个研究(仅OMS专家)报道了这两个序列。我院2011 - 2021年共收治PFF患者124例;中上部分64例(51.6%),中下部分52例(41.9%),三部分8例(6.5%)。结论:OMS专家主要采用自下而上测序法,文献综述中有2位专家采用自下而上测序法。然而,在我们的经验中,很难始终如一地执行文献综述所建议的单向序列。我们首先重新排列可靠和稳定的扶壁,为每个病人量身定制,而不是按照单向顺序进行,如自下而上或自上而下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sequencing of panfacial fracture surgery: a literature review and personal preference.

Background: Treating panfacial fractures (PFFs) can be extremely difficult even for experienced surgeons. Although several authors have attempted to systemize the surgical approach, performing surgery by applying a unidirectional sequence is much more difficult in practice. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on PFF surgery sequence and to understand how different surgical specialists-plastic reconstructive surgery (PRS) and oral maxillofacial surgery (OMS)-chose sequence and review PFFs fixation sequence in clinical cases.

Methods: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were scoured for publications published up until May 2020. Data extracted from the studies using standard templates included fracture part, fixation sequence, originating specialist, and the countries. Bibliographic details like author and year of publication were also extracted. Also, we reviewed the data for PFFs patients in the Trauma Registry System of Dankook University Hospital from 2011 to 2021.

Results: In total, 240 articles were identified. This study comprised 22 studies after screening and full-text analysis. Sixteen studies (12 OMS specialists and 4 PRS specialists) used a "bottom-top" approach, whereas three studies (1 OMS specialist and 2 PRS specialists) used a "top-bottom" method. However, three studies (only OMS specialists) reported on both sequences. In our hospital, there were a total of 124 patients with PFF who were treated during 2011 to 2021; 64 (51.6%) were in upper-middle parts, 52 (41.9%) were in mid-lower parts, and eight (6.5%) were in three parts.

Conclusion: Bottom-top sequencing was mainly used in OMS specialists, and top-bottom sequencing was used at a similar rate by two specialists in literature review. In our experience, however, it was hard to consistently implement unidirectional sequence suggested by a literature review. We realigned the reliable and stable buttresses first with tailoring individually for each patient, rather than proceeding in the unidirectional sequence like bottom-top or top-bottom.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
Archives of Craniofacial Surgery Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
In-house dental lab-based cranial prosthesis fabrication: a technical note. Treatment of a lip defect in a patient with choreaacanthocytosis using a combination of surgical and adjuvant onabotulinumtoxinA therapy: a case report. Surgical correction of facial bone deformity and enophthalmos after tripod fracture using an acellular dermal matrix: a case report. Successful surgical interventions for a giant and complicated myoepithelial carcinoma: a case report. Intraosseous vascular malformation of the skull: a case report and literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1