ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2022
Sequencing of panfacial fracture surgery: a literature review and personal preference.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staged reconstruction of panfacial trauma involving a comminuted mandibular fracture: a case report.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary management in panfacial trauma: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- A Shift in Conceptual Thinking of Panfacial Fracture Sequencing: The Major Fragment Theory.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
- Intraoperative navigation in craniofacial surgery.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreating panfacial fractures (PFFs) can be extremely difficult even for experienced surgeons. Although several authors have attempted to systemize the surgical approach, performing surgery by applying a unidirectional sequence is much more difficult in practice. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on PFF surgery sequence and to understand how different surgical specialists-plastic reconstructive surgery (PRS) and oral maxillofacial surgery (OMS)-chose sequence and review PFFs fixation sequence in clinical cases.
methodsThe PubMed and Google Scholar databases were scoured for publications published up until May 2020. Data extracted from the studies using standard templates included fracture part, fixation sequence, originating specialist, and the countries. Bibliographic details like author and year of publication were also extracted. Also, we reviewed the data for PFFs patients in the Trauma Registry System of Dankook University Hospital from 2011 to 2021.
resultsIn total, 240 articles were identified. This study comprised 22 studies after screening and full-text analysis. Sixteen studies (12 OMS specialists and 4 PRS specialists) used a "bottom-top" approach, whereas three studies (1 OMS specialist and 2 PRS specialists) used a "top-bottom" method. However, three studies (only OMS specialists) reported on both sequences. In our hospital, there were a total of 124 patients with PFF who were treated during 2011 to 2021; 64 (51.6%) were in upper-middle parts, 52 (41.9%) were in mid-lower parts, and eight (6.5%) were in three parts.
conclusionBottom-top sequencing was mainly used in OMS specialists, and top-bottom sequencing was used at a similar rate by two specialists in literature review. In our experience, however, it was hard to consistently implement unidirectional sequence suggested by a literature review. We realigned the reliable and stable buttresses first with tailoring individually for each patient, rather than proceeding in the unidirectional sequence like bottom-top or top-bottom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.