3种创伤严重度评分法对下颌骨骨折评估的对比分析

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2019.07.019

口腔医学研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (7): 701-703.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2019.07.019

3种创伤严重度评分法对下颌骨骨折评估的对比分析

程慧敏, 庄芳璐, 阿地力·莫明^*

新疆医科大学第一附属医院颌面创伤正颌外科新疆乌鲁木齐 830054

收稿日期:2018-12-08 出版日期:2019-07-25 发布日期:2019-07-24
通讯作者: 阿地力·莫明,E-mail: adili928@hotmail.com
作者简介:程慧敏(1991~ ),女,硕士在读,研究方向:口腔颌面外科学
基金资助:
新疆地区口腔颌面创伤流行病学调查(编号:81660190)

Comparative Study on Three Traumatic Scores for Mandibular Fracture Scores

CHENG Huimin, ZHUANG Fanglu, Adili·Moming^*

Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University. Urumqi 830054, China.

Received:2018-12-08 Online:2019-07-25 Published:2019-07-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的:对比3种创伤评分方法对下颌骨骨折损伤评分的差异性,分析以下颌骨损伤为主,具有统计学意义的评分方法。方法:对372例(创伤时间<2周)下颌骨骨折患者,应用MISS、MFISS及下颌骨损伤严重度评分(S5)3种颌面部创伤评分法进行创伤评分,最终对3种评分方法所得结果进行对比分析。结果:MISS法及MFISS法较下颌骨损伤严重度评分(S5)法更能准确地区分下颌骨单处和多处伤,并对不同部位的下颌骨损伤评估更有临床意义,其中以MISS法差异最为显著。结论:对于下颌骨骨折情况,下颌骨损伤严重度评分(S5)法与MISS法、MFISS法相比,不及后两者评分体系敏感

关键词: 创伤评分法, 下颌骨骨折, 下颌骨损伤严重度评分, 张口受限, 咬合紊乱

Abstract: Objective: To compare the scores of the three kinds of trauma scoring methods for mandibular fracture injury and to analyze the statistical evaluation of the scores of the following mandibular injuries. Methods: A total of 372 patients (wound period <2 weeks) with mandibular trauma were assessed with MISS, MFISS, and mandibular injury severity scores (S5) for maxillary trauma scores. The results were compared and analyzed. Results: The MISS method and the MFISS method could accurately differentiate single from multiple mandibular injuries. They were more meaningful for evaluating different sites of mandibular fractures compared with the mandibular injury severity score (S5) method. Conclusion: For mandibular fractures, the mandibular injury score (S5) is less sensitive than the MISS and MFISS.

Key words: trauma score , mandibular fracture, mandibular injury severity scores, limitation of mouth opening, malocclusion

程慧敏, 庄芳璐, 阿地力·莫明. 3种创伤严重度评分法对下颌骨骨折评估的对比分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(7): 701-703.

CHENG Huimin, ZHUANG Fanglu, Adili·Moming. Comparative Study on Three Traumatic Scores for Mandibular Fracture Scores[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2019, 35(7): 701-703.

参考文献

[1] 林萍,叶莲妹,陈霞,等.创伤评分法在口腔颌面损伤临床治疗中的指导价值分析[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2015,12(4):117-120.
[2] 王柏林.创伤严重度评分与颌面多发骨折整复预后的相关性分析[J].中国美容医学,2012,21(13):1743-1745.
[3] Chen C, Zhang Y, An JG, et al. Comparative study of four maxillofacial trauma scoring systems and expert score [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 72(11):2212-2220.
[4] 陈辉,刘彦普,刘斌.1001例口腔颌面部创伤患者临床分析[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2012,10(2):129-133.
[5] 王聪,彭彩霞,张莹莹,等.下颌第三磨牙与下颌骨骨折关系的研究进展[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2016,30(2):118-121.
[6] Shetty V, Atchison K, Der-Matirosian C, et al. The mandible injury severity score: development and validity [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(4):663-670.
[7] 李戍军,刘彦普,石照辉,等.三种创伤严重度评分对颌面创伤评估的比较[J].解放军医学杂志,2004,29(1):66-68.
[8] 薄斌,周树夏,顾晓明.AIS-ISS创伤评分法及其在颌面创伤中的应用[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2001,36(2):155-157.
[9] 张杰,张益,周炼,等.口腔颌面部创伤院内评分的初步研究[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2004,39(5):367-369.
[10] 魏斌,孙国文.口内入路治疗髁突低位骨折[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(5):534-537.
[11] 沈黎文,魏薇萍,朱晓燕.创伤评分对严重创伤患者伤情反应及急诊救治效果的影响[J].实用临床医药杂志,2014,18(9):38.
[12] 邱俊,袁丹凤,代维,等.中国颌面创伤评分研究[J].伤害医学(电子版),2014,3(3):49-52.
[13] Ramalingam S. Role of maxillofacial trauma scoring systems in determining the economic burden to maxillofacial trauma patients in India [J]. J Int Oral Health, 2015, 7(4):38-43.
[14] 张杰,柳新华,张益,等.颌面损伤严重度评分与损伤严重度评分评估颌面创伤严重度的敏感性比较[J].中华创伤杂志,2007,23(9):682-684.
[15] 陈晨,张益,安金刚,等.3种颌面部创伤评分评估下颌骨骨折的比较研究[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2015,1(1):68-72.

3种创伤严重度评分法对下颌骨骨折评估的对比分析

Comparative Study on Three Traumatic Scores for Mandibular Fracture Scores

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics