Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2015, vol. 52, nr 4, October-December, p. 401–407

doi: 10.17219/dmp/59241

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Clinical Follow-up Examination and the Patients’ Perception – a Comparative Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Based on a Study Performed Among Patients with Fractures of the Upper and Middle Thirds of the Facial Skeleton

Kliniczne badania kontrolne a subiektywne odczucia pacjenta – analiza porównawcza wyników leczenia na podstawie badań przeprowadzonych wśród pacjentów ze złamaniami w obrębie górnego i środkowego piętra twarzoczaszki

Paweł Stępień1,A,B,C,D,F, Hanna Gerber2,E,F

1 Jan Mikulicz-Radecki University Teaching Hospital, Wrocław, Poland

2 Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland

Abstract

Background. Patients with facial skeleton injuries constitute a numerous group. Their treatment should enable the elimination of any functional, morphological, and esthetic disorders. Remote follow-ups allow us to observe the persistent disorders and gather information leading to surgical technique improvement. However, data on patients’ perception can significantly add to the results assessment.
Objectives. The aim of the paper was a comparative analysis of the outcomes obtained in the follow-up examination and a questionnaire survey among patients with past facial skeleton injuries.
Material and Methods. The authors analyzed 266 patients. The follow-up examination, attended by 70 (26.3%) patients, was performed within 1–3 years after treatment. Also, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to the patients; 93 of them answered the questionnaire. Patients were asked to assess the management results on the basis of their experience with the treatment process, and the persistent disorders.
Results. The follow-up data proved a positive outcome in 57 (81.4%) patients; an unsatisfactory outcome was noted in 13 (18.6%) patients. The questionnaire results were presented as the patients’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the treatment effects. A positive outcome was obtained in 88.8%; an unsatisfactory outcome referred to 11.2%. The results demonstrate that even the more frequent present disorders cannot be unequivocally converted into data on the patients’ satisfaction with the treatment effects.
Conclusion. A consideration of the patients’ own evaluation should be an inherent part of the management results assessment. A complex results analysis lets us draw conclusions to improve not only the treatment methods, but also the patients’ psychical comfort.

Key words

questionnaire, follow-up, outcome assessment, patient satisfaction, facial injuries

Słowa kluczowe

ankieta, badania kontrolne, ocena wyników leczenia, zadowolenie pacjentów, urazy twarzoczaszki

References (38)

  1. Osmola K.: Facial skeleton fractures in the general practitioner’s practice. Forum Med. Rodz. 2007, 2, 159–164 [in Polish].
  2. Kryst L.: Maxillofacial Surgery. PZWL, Warszawa 2007 [in Polish].
  3. Różyło-Kalinowska I., Różyło K., Tomaszewski T.: The algorithm of imaging techniques applied in diagnosing fractures of the middle part of the facial skeleton with lateral application area according to Wanyura’s classification. Czas. Stomatol. 2000, 53, 806–811 [in Polish].
  4. Stępień P.: Retrospective assessment of orbital fractures management results in patients treated in the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland, in years 2009–20011. Doctoral thesis. Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław 2014 [in Polish].
  5. Parulska O.: Epidemiological assessment of facial skeleton fractures in the population of Lower Silesia, Poland, in years 2002–2006. Doctoral thesis. Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław 2011 [in Polish].
  6. Buchanan J., Colquhoun A., Friedlander L., Evans S., Whitley B., Thomson M.: Maxillofacial Fractures at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand: 1989 to 2000. N.Z. Med. J. 2005, 118, 1529.
  7. Calderoni R., Guidi M., Kharmandayan P., Nunes H.: Seven-year institutional experience in the surgical treatment of orbito-zygomatic fractures. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2011, 39, 593–599.
  8. Kontio R., Suuronen R., Ponkkonen H., Lindqvist C., Laine P.: Have the causes of maxillofacial fractures changed over the last 16 years in Finland? An epidemiological study of 725 fractures. Dent. Traumatol. 2005, 21, 14–19.
  9. Wanyura H.: Own suggestions for orbital fractures management. Habilitation thesis. Warsaw Medical University, Warszawa 1990 [in Polish].
  10. Chi M., Ku M., Shin K., Baek S.: An analysis of 733 surgically treated blowout fractures. Ophthalmol. 2010, 224, 167–175.
  11. Kar I., Mahavoi B.: Retrospective analysis of 503 maxillo-facial trauma cases in Odisha during the period of Dec’04–Nov’09. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2012, 11, 177–181.
  12. Korzon T., Zienkiewicz J., Rykaczewska J., Dziubiński Z., Hoffmann G.: Facial skeleton fractures epidemiology in the context of the Polish literature of the recent 30 years and data from the Department of Maxillary Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. Czas. Stomatol. 1981, 34, 277–283 [in Polish].
  13. Stopa Z., Wanyura H.: Zygomatic orbital fractures epidemiology on the basis of the material from the 1st Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. Czas. Stomatol. 2000, 53, 371–379 [in Polish].
  14. Alvi A., Doherty T., Lewen G.: Facial fractures and concomitant injuries in trauma patients. Laryngoscope 2003, 113, 102–106.
  15. Bakardijev A., Pechalova P.: Maxillofacial fractures in South Bulgaria – a retrospective study of 1706 cases. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2007, 35, 147–150.
  16. Łuczak K.: Assessment of the results of zygomatic maxillary orbital fractures surgical treatment. Doctoral thesis. Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław 1993 [in Polish].
  17. Barańczak Z., Flieger S.: Analysis of maxillofacial injuries resulting from communication accidents. Czas. Stomatol. 1976, 29, 33–42 [in Polish].
  18. Eggensperger N., Smolka K., Scheidegger B., Zimmermann H., Iizuka T.: A 3-year survey of assault-related maxillofacial fractures in central Switzerland. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2007, 35, 161–167.
  19. Gosau M., Schöneich M., Draenert F., Ettl T., Driemel O., Reichert T.E.: Retrospective analysis of orbital floor fractures – complications, outcome, and review of literature. Clin. Oral Invest. 2011, 15, 305–313.
  20. Samolczyk-Wanyura D.: Upper facial fractures. An attempt of classification. Doctoral thesis. Warsaw Medical University, Warszawa 1989 [in Polish].
  21. Bartoszcze-Tomaszewska M., Tomaszewski T., Stodółkiewicz A., Koliński P., Dobieżyńska B.: Facial skeleton injuries resulting from agricultural accidents in middle eastern Poland (part 1). Wiad. Lek. 2004, 57, 301–305 [in Polish].
  22. Foczpański J.: Assessment of upper facial skeleton fractures treatment results. Magazyn Stomatol. 2002, 12, 4, 40–44 [in Polish].
  23. Habelak M., Pelc R.: Management of zygomatic orbital fractures with the modified skeletal apparatus by M. Jankowski. Czas. Stomatol. 1999, 52, 609–613 [in Polish].
  24. Iida S., Kogo M., Sugiura T., Mima T., Matsuya T.: Retrospective analysis of 1502 patients with facial fractures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 30, 286–290.
  25. Baino F.: Biomaterials and implants for orbital floor repair. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3248–3266.
  26. Dziadek H., Cieślik T.: Treatment of zygomatic orbital and zygomatic maxillary orbital fractures with the use of open reposition and direct platelet osteosynthesis. Wiad. Lek. 2005, 58, 5–6 [in Polish].
  27. Potter J., Ellis III E.: Biomaterials for reconstruction of the internal orbit. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2004, 62, 1280–1297.
  28. Samolczyk-Wanyura D.: Anatomopathological and clinical assessment of bone injuries in patients treated for zygomatic maxillary orbital fractures: own observations. Czas. Stomatol. 2004, 57, 722–728 [in Polish].
  29. Courtney D., Thomas S., Whitfield P.: Isolated orbital blowout fractures: survey and review. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2000, 38, 496–504.
  30. Koide R., Ueda T., Takano K., Tsuchiya A., Totsuka N., Inatomi M.: Surgical outcome of blowout fracture: early repair without implants and the usefulness of balloon treatment. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 47, 392–397.
  31. Rhim C., Scholz T., Salibian A., Evans G.: Orbital floor fractures: a retrospective review of 45 cases at a tertiary health care center. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma Reconstr. 2010, 3, 41–47.
  32. Vriens J., Moos K.: Morbidity of the infraorbital nerve following orbitozygomatic complex fractures. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 1995, 23, 363–368.
  33. Vriens J.P., Glas H.W. Van Der, Bosman F., Koole R., Moos K.F.: Information on infraorbital nerve damage from multitesting of sensory function. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998, 27, 20–26.
  34. Yilmaz M., Vayvada H., Aydin E., Menderes A., Atabey A.: Repair of fractures of the orbital floor with porous polyethylene implants. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 45, 640–644.
  35. Buss D.: Evolutionary Psychology. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2001 [in Polish].
  36. Craft R.: Modulation of pain by estrogens. Pain 2007, 132, 3–12.
  37. Etcoff N.: Survival of the prettiest. WAB, Warszawa 2000 [in Polish].
  38. Makacewicz S., Panek H., Dąbrowa T., Krawczykowska H., Przywitowska I., Gronczyńska S.: Patient’s satisfaction with the complex dental care model. Dent. Med. Probl. 2006, 43, 409–414 [in Polish].