An Epidemiological Analysis and Comparison of Single Site and Multiple Site Fracture Repair: An NSQIP Analysis

We aimed to utilize the 2010 to 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to evaluate the epidemiology and efficacy of facial fracture repairs, specifically comparing multiple fracture site repairs (MFR) compared to single fracture site repairs (SFR). Of 4739 patients, 718 (15.2%) were found to have undergone MFR. A total of 577 (80.4%) of the MFRs involved the midface only. A total of 2114 (52.6%) of the SFRs were mid-face fractures, while 1825 (45.4%) involved the lower-face and only 82 (2.0%) involved the upper-face. The most frequent MFR was combined orbital and malar/zygoma repair (230 cases [32.0%]). When comparing MFR and SFR of the mid-face, MFR patients were more commonly male, White, operated on by plastic surgeons, presented with contaminated wounds, and active smokers. While MFRs were associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.001) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001), there were no differences in reoperation or readmission. Overall, complication rates were low, but slightly higher in the mid-face MFR group (1.4% in mid-face SFR and 3.0% in mid-face MFR; P = 0.019). Sub-analysis of mid-face only MFRs and middle-lower-face MFRs revealed no difference in postoperative complication rates (3.0% and 7.0%, respectively; P = 0.071). The data presented suggests that MFR are a relatively common occurrence. Although plastic surgeons perform MFRs more frequently, it is currently unclear whether the underlying reason is a product of differences in training, coding patterns, or referral patterns. Though MFRs require more hospital resources, complications rates are low. This will help manage patient expectations and guide patient counseling before surgery, as well as help to plan postoperative care.