medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Anales de Radiología, México

  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2012, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2012; 11 (4)

Maxillofacial traumatism: review of the present classification by multisection computed tomography

Ponce GV, Franco CR
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 228-236
PDF size: 579.10 Kb.


Key words:

maxillofacial traumatism, functional anatomy of the face, faucial pillars or supports, fracture patterns.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the most widely used classification for maxillofacial traumatism is that described by the French physician Rene Le Fort in 1901, which describes experimentally produced patterns of fractures, as a result of which the majority are lowenergy traumatisms. At present traffic accidents are the most common mechanism of injury that conditions high-energy facial injuries. The present classification takes into consideration the functional anatomy of the facial skeleton, analyzed by means of the faucial pillars or supports that give stability to the functional units of the face, combined with the findings of multisection computed tomography in transverse planes and coronal multiplanar and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric reconstructions. The sagittal plane can be used only for exploration of displacement of fragments in fractures. The accumulation of knowledge of the functional anatomy of the facial skeleton, the biomechanics of the faucial pillars in relation to the base of the skull, and the most common fracture patterns will lead to more accurate classification and surgical planning in maxillofacial traumatism.
Conclusion: radiologists’ learning of the classification most commonly used for maxillofacial traumatism will provide sufficient criteria for surgical planning and for more accurate diagnosis in injuries of the facial skeleton.


REFERENCES

  1. Booth PW, Eppley BL, Schmelzeisen R. Traumatismos maxilofaciales y reconstrucción facial estética. 1ª ed. España. Elsevier 2005;70–106.

  2. Larheim TA, Westesson PL. Maxillofacial Imaging. Heidelberg, Germany. Springer 2006; 199 – 226.

  3. Censo epidemiológico del Servicio de Cirugía Maxilofacial del Hospital de Traumatología y Ortopedia de Lomas Verdes Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Censo Estadístico 2010;1.

  4. Salvolini U. Traumatic injuries. Imaging of facial trauma. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(6):1253–61.

  5. Donat TL, Endress C, Mathog RH. Arch otolaryngol head neck surg 1998;124:1306-1314.

  6. Perugini, S., et al. CT In Facial Trauma. España. Springer 2006;11:179–191.

  7. Hardt, N, Kuttenberger, J. Craniofacial Trauma, Diagnosis and Management. Springer 2010;9–11,31- 67.

  8. Scarfe, WC, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:S75-S89.

  9. Richard, AH, et al. Diagnosis of Midface Fractures with CT: What the surgeon needs to know. RadioGraphics 2006;26:783–793.

  10. Ceallaigh, PO, et al. Diagnosis and managment of common maxillofacial injuries in the emergency department. Part 2: mandibular fractures. Emerg Med J 2006;23:927–928.

  11. Velázquez JL. Redacción del escrito médico. 4ª ed. México. Prado 1999;1–10.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Anales de Radiología México. 2012;11