ArticleCureus2025
Airway Challenges in Maxillofacial Trauma: A Retrospective Study of 100 Cases.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaxillofacial trauma creates uniquely challenging airways. Anesthesiologists often struggle with initial access, maintaining the airway during surgery, safe extubation, and postoperative monitoring. These cases require experience and careful planning.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 100 patients who were presented with maxillofacial trauma. Patients were assessed for airway patency based on preoperative criteria, including Mallampati classification, thyromental distance, mentohyoid distance, and neck movement. The intubation technique was selected based on fracture type and the anticipated difficulty in securing the airway. Techniques used included direct laryngoscopy, videolaryngoscopy, and blind nasal intubation.
resultsDirect laryngoscopy was the most commonly used technique in 53% of patients with minimal facial trauma. However, videolaryngoscopy was used in 23% of cases where a difficult airway was anticipated, while blind nasal intubation was performed in 24% of patients. The most common fractures were mandibular (29%), followed by nasal (24%) and maxillary (24%).
conclusionAirway management in maxillofacial trauma patients requires a tailored approach, with videolaryngoscopy being a valuable tool for difficult intubations. Proper preoperative evaluation and the collaboration between anesthesiologists and surgeons are essential for optimizing patient outcomes.
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.