Introduction: The treatment of panfacial fractures is complex and constitutes a challenge for the maxillofacial surgeon, who, despite therapeutic progress, frequently suffers functional and aesthetic sequelae. This st...Introduction: The treatment of panfacial fractures is complex and constitutes a challenge for the maxillofacial surgeon, who, despite therapeutic progress, frequently suffers functional and aesthetic sequelae. This study aimed to describe the treatment and evaluate the functional and aesthetic sequelae of panfacial fractures in the stomatology and maxillofacial surgery department of the Treichville University Hospital. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study over a 6 years in the stomatology and maxillofacial surgery department of Treichville University Hospital. Forty-two patients with panfacial fractures were included in the study. Results: Forty-two patients were registered. The average time to osteosynthesis was 12.4 days. Nasotracheal intubation was used most often (88%), and in the majority of cases, mixed osteosynthesis combining a screwed plate and steel wire was performed (64.29%). The “Bottom-up and Outside-in” surgical sequence was the most commonly used (64.29%). All patients had at least one functional and/or cosmetic sequela after treatment. Functional sequelae were dominated by occlusal problems and aesthetic sequelae by nasal deformities. Discussion: Panfacial fractures are characterised by their complexity, presenting maxillo-facial surgeons with a therapeutic and evolutionary challenge. The quality of the initial, often multidisciplinary, management of panfacial fractures is an essential factor in both functional and aesthetic prognosis. Conclusion: The treatment of panfacial fractures, even if well managed, is sometimes a source of sequelae, requiring often complex secondary management.展开更多
文摘Introduction: The treatment of panfacial fractures is complex and constitutes a challenge for the maxillofacial surgeon, who, despite therapeutic progress, frequently suffers functional and aesthetic sequelae. This study aimed to describe the treatment and evaluate the functional and aesthetic sequelae of panfacial fractures in the stomatology and maxillofacial surgery department of the Treichville University Hospital. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study over a 6 years in the stomatology and maxillofacial surgery department of Treichville University Hospital. Forty-two patients with panfacial fractures were included in the study. Results: Forty-two patients were registered. The average time to osteosynthesis was 12.4 days. Nasotracheal intubation was used most often (88%), and in the majority of cases, mixed osteosynthesis combining a screwed plate and steel wire was performed (64.29%). The “Bottom-up and Outside-in” surgical sequence was the most commonly used (64.29%). All patients had at least one functional and/or cosmetic sequela after treatment. Functional sequelae were dominated by occlusal problems and aesthetic sequelae by nasal deformities. Discussion: Panfacial fractures are characterised by their complexity, presenting maxillo-facial surgeons with a therapeutic and evolutionary challenge. The quality of the initial, often multidisciplinary, management of panfacial fractures is an essential factor in both functional and aesthetic prognosis. Conclusion: The treatment of panfacial fractures, even if well managed, is sometimes a source of sequelae, requiring often complex secondary management.
