Factors Affecting Aesthetic Results in Patients Undergoing Craniofacial Reconstruction Following Maxillofacial Trauma

Overview

Journal Am J Transl Res

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Dec 16

PMID 39678580

Authors

Zhisheng Li

Fanting Meng

Mingzhu Jin

Hyeogjin Kwon

Kai Zhong

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the factors influencing the cosmetic outcomes and prognosis of patients undergoing maxillofacial trauma reconstruction.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 335 patients who underwent maxillofacial trauma surgery criteria at Yunfu People's Hospital from March 2016 to June 2023. The Face-Q facial cosmetic rating scale was utilized to evaluate outcomes, with scores above 60 deemed the good prognosis group (n=234) and scores below 60 as the poor prognosis group (n=101). Two groups were compared in terms of demographic data, type of trauma, clinical presentation, intraoperative indicators, postoperative serum parameters and nutritional levels, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) sleep quality scores. Postoperative recovery and the incidence of complications were documented. Correlation analysis was performed, and Logistic regression analysis was used to determine influencing factors.

Results: Patients in the good prognosis group were significantly younger than those in the poor prognosis group (38.15 ± 10.32 vs. 46.69 ± 12.15, P < 0.001). Postoperative protein intake (65.81% vs. 33.66%, P < 0.001) and levels of anxiety (5.57 ± 1.52 vs. 6.61 ± 1.47, P < 0.001) were also better in the good prognosis group. There were significant differences in scar formation (5.57 ± 1.52 vs. 6.61 ± 1.47, P < 0.001), postoperative complications (2.56% vs. 8.91%, P=0.022) and scar hypertrophy (1.28% vs. 6.93%, P=0.015) between the two groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age (OR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.039-1.109), protein intake adequacy (OR=0.297, 95% CI: 0.141-0.625), HAS scores (OR=1.295, 95% CI: 1.011-1.658), infection (OR=11.579, 95% CI: 2.656-52.274), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score (OR=15.672, 95% CI: 7.379-33.285) were significantly associated with aesthetic outcomes. The ROC analysis showed that their combined prediction had an AUC of 0.920, indicating good predictive value.

Conclusions: Younger age, adequate protein intake, lower anxiety scores, better scar assessment, and lower infection rates were associated with better prognosis. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing these factors to optimize outcome in craniofacial trauma reconstruction.

References

Benton M, Hutchins A . The relationship between resting metabolic rate and quality of life is moderated by age and body composition in women: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):235. PMC: 11015637. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03085-0. View

Sharifi F, Samieirad S, Grillo R, Naclerio-Homem M, Bardideh E, Manafi A . The Causes and Prevalence of Maxillofacial Fractures in Iran: A Systematic Review. World J Plast Surg. 2023; 12(1):1-11. PMC: 10200082. DOI: 10.52547/wjps.12.1.3. View

Wang Y, Wang D, Liu J, Pan J . Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion. J Dent Sci. 2021; 16(4):1055-1065. PMC: 8403808. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.12.003. View

Yanan J, Hui D, Jianwei G, Ronglin L, Lijuan Z, Jing Z . A Comparative Study on Sedation Efficacy Between General and Regional Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine in Patients Under Maxillofacial Surgery. Curr Drug Metab. 2022; 23(11):920-927. DOI: 10.2174/1389200223666220413113412. View

Othman A, Al-Mofreh Al-Qahtani F, Al-Qahtani H, Jaber M, Bishawi K, Khamis A . Traumatic brain injuries and maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 27(3):373-385. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-022-01076-9. View

Thederan I, Zyriax B, Heinzer H . [Role of nutrition in urological prehabilitation]. Urologie. 2023; 62(10):1017-1024. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-023-02192-4. View

Zhou H, Lv K, Rong-TaoYang , Li Z, Li Z . Maxillofacial Injuries in Pediatric Patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2021; 32(4):1476-1479. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007402. View

Pullos A, Krishnan D . Complicated Maxillofacial Fractures: Pediatric and Geriatric. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019; 27(2):113-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.cxom.2019.05.003. View

Franco-Valencia K, Nobrega I, Cantaruti T, Barra A, Klein A, Azevedo-Jr G . Subcutaneous injection of an immunologically tolerated protein up to 5 days before skin injuries improves wound healing. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2022; 55:e11735. PMC: 8851940. DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X2021e11735. View

10.

Zimmerman M, Martinez J, Young D, Chelminski I, Dalrymple K . Severity classification on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. J Affect Disord. 2013; 150(2):384-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.04.028. View

11.

Henry A, Dawoud B, Kent S, McDonald C, Logan G, Hennedige A . Clinical features and presentation of cervicofacial infection: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 59(4):433-438. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.102. View

12.

Wusiman P, Maimaitituerxun B, Guli , Saimaiti A, Moming A . Epidemiology and Pattern of Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31(5):e517-e520. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006719. View

13.

Sifuentes-Cervantes J, Muzzi D, Castro-Nunez J, Guerrero L, Cunningham L . Maxillofacial Trauma Patterns in Bare-Knuckle Fighting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 80(10):1663-1669. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.07.137. View

14.

Basu S, Goswami A, David L, Mudge E . Psychological Stress on Wound Healing: A Silent Player in a Complex Background. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2022; 23(3):365-371. DOI: 10.1177/15347346221077571. View

15.

Kim E, Kim C, Yoon J, Byeon G, Kim H, Choi E . Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between Remimazolam and Propofol in Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023; 23(1):132. PMC: 10122311. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02091-3. View

16.

Preda F, Morgan N, Van Gerven A, Nogueira-Reis F, Smolders A, Wang X . Deep convolutional neural network-based automated segmentation of the maxillofacial complex from cone-beam computed tomography:A validation study. J Dent. 2022; 124:104238. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104238. View

17.

He W, Xu J, Zheng Y, Chen J, Yin Y, Mosselhy D . Bacterial cellulose/soybean protein isolate composites with promoted inflammation inhibition, angiogenesis and hair follicle regeneration for wound healing. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022; 211:754-766. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.04.118. View

18.

Hedayati J, Bagheri-Nesami M, Elyasi F, Hosseinnataj A . The Effect of Music Therapy on the Pain and Anxiety Levels of Patients Experiencing Wound Healing by Suturing in the Emergency Wards. Anesth Pain Med. 2023; 13(1):e132943. PMC: 10319044. DOI: 10.5812/aapm-132943. View

19.

Vasquez-Alvarez S, Bustamante-Villagomez S, Vazquez-Marroquin G, Porchia L, Perez-Fuentes R, Torres-Rasgado E . Metabolic Age, an Index Based on Basal Metabolic Rate, Can Predict Individuals That are High Risk of Developing Metabolic Syndrome. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2021; 28(3):263-270. DOI: 10.1007/s40292-021-00441-1. View

20.

Bansod A, Pisulkar S, Dahihandekar C, Beri A . Rapid Prototyping in Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Review of Literature. Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e28969. PMC: 9548214. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28969. View