ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2025
Ultrasound as a Diagnostic Tool in Detection of Maxillofacial Fractures at Level 1 Trauma Centre ED in India.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Injuries, especially maxillofacial fractures, pose a significant global health burden exacerbated by increasing traffic activities. Early detection is vital for preventing complications. This study assesses ultrasound's diagnostic efficacy, aiming to improve patient management and minimise treatment delays by detecting maxillofacial fractures promptly and accurately. Objective: The main aim was to assess point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in diagnosing maxillofacial fractures against computed tomography (CT) scans. Secondary goals included identifying ocular injuries, mandibular fractures, assessing probe feasibility and comparing Le Fort classification via ultrasound and CT. Methodology: Between January 2019 and February 2021, 150 trauma patients (136 male) with a mean age of 28.5 ± 5 years (range, 18-62 years) suspected of maxillofacial fractures were enrolled. A trained physician performed facial ultrasound, and findings were documented alongside CT scan results. Using the SPSS software, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of POCUS against CT scans were analysed. Results: Among 150 patients, CT scans diagnosed 137 with maxillofacial fractures, primarily due to road traffic accidents. Zygomatic fractures were most common, followed by nasal bone and mandibular parasymphysial fractures. POCUS exhibited high sensitivity (98.9%), specificity (99.1%), PPV (92%), and NPV (99.8%) for overall facial fractures, varying by bone. Associated occult ocular injuries occurred in two patients. Sensitivity and specificity were high for mandibular fractures. 5-10 MHz frequency linear probe, footprint-50 mm was optimal for midfacial bones, but Le Fort fractures could not be reliably identified using ultrasound. Conclusion: The study underscores the value of POCUS in the Emergency Department for detecting maxillofacial fractures, despite limitations such as anatomical challenges. POCUS showed high diagnostic accuracy, emphasising its potential in clinical practice, requiring further validation and exploration.
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.