ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Patterns of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma at an Urban Level I Trauma Center.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of Initial CT Imaging for Surgical Planning and Outcomes in Panfacial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Review
- Patterns and Outcomes of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma in Puerto Rico: Insights From a Five-Year Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a paucity in the literature concerning craniomaxillofacial trauma (CMF) in the USA. Better recognition of these fracture patterns and their management clarifies how to best evaluate and treat them. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of CMF trauma patients who required surgical intervention at a level I trauma center between 2015 and 2018. Descriptive statistics and univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted (α = 0.05). Results: A total of 1001 patients were included. Most patients were Black (n = 665; 66%) and/or male individuals (n = 813; 57%) with an average age of 37 years (range 15 -110). The most common etiologies were assault (n = 471; 44%), motor vehicle collision (n = 238; 22%), and fall (n = 117; 11%). The mechanism of injury was a determinant of fracture type (P = 0.045). The most common CMF injuries were mandibular fracture (n = 953; 95%), maxillary fracture (n = 815; 81%), and orbital fracture (n = 206; 21%). Male sex predicted panfacial fractures (P = 0.045). Black patients experienced more severe CMF trauma compared with other races (P < 0.001). ORIF was the most common treatment for mandibular (n = 481; 73%) and maxillary (n = 62; 66%) fractures. Conclusions: Etiology and patterns of CMF trauma differ globally, with assault and motor vehicle collisions being the leading causative factors in our patient population. Patient demographics are relatively consistent worldwide, with most injuries occurring in 30- to 40-year-old men. This study offers insight into at-risk populations and guidance on their management.
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.