ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Factors affecting aesthetic results in patients undergoing craniofacial reconstruction following maxillofacial trauma.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the factors influencing the cosmetic outcomes and prognosis of patients undergoing maxillofacial trauma reconstruction.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 335 patients who underwent maxillofacial trauma surgery criteria at Yunfu People's Hospital from March 2016 to June 2023. The Face-Q facial cosmetic rating scale was utilized to evaluate outcomes, with scores above 60 deemed the good prognosis group (n=234) and scores below 60 as the poor prognosis group (n=101). Two groups were compared in terms of demographic data, type of trauma, clinical presentation, intraoperative indicators, postoperative serum parameters and nutritional levels, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) sleep quality scores. Postoperative recovery and the incidence of complications were documented. Correlation analysis was performed, and Logistic regression analysis was used to determine influencing factors.
resultsPatients in the good prognosis group were significantly younger than those in the poor prognosis group (38.15 ± 10.32 vs. 46.69 ± 12.15, P < 0.001). Postoperative protein intake (65.81% vs. 33.66%, P < 0.001) and levels of anxiety (5.57 ± 1.52 vs. 6.61 ± 1.47, P < 0.001) were also better in the good prognosis group. There were significant differences in scar formation (5.57 ± 1.52 vs. 6.61 ± 1.47, P < 0.001), postoperative complications (2.56% vs. 8.91%, P=0.022) and scar hypertrophy (1.28% vs. 6.93%, P=0.015) between the two groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age (OR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.039-1.109), protein intake adequacy (OR=0.297, 95% CI: 0.141-0.625), HAS scores (OR=1.295, 95% CI: 1.011-1.658), infection (OR=11.579, 95% CI: 2.656-52.274), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score (OR=15.672, 95% CI: 7.379-33.285) were significantly associated with aesthetic outcomes. The ROC analysis showed that their combined prediction had an AUC of 0.920, indicating good predictive value.
conclusionsYounger age, adequate protein intake, lower anxiety scores, better scar assessment, and lower infection rates were associated with better prognosis. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing these factors to optimize outcome in craniofacial trauma reconstruction.
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.