Related Experiment Videos
Comparative postoperative infection rates in midfacial trauma using intermaxillary fixation, wire fixation, and rigid
J D Macias1, J Haller, J L Frodel
1Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City.
Archives of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery
|March 1, 1993
Summary
Rigid internal fixation for midfacial fractures does not increase postoperative infection risk compared to other methods. This study found no significant difference in infection rates or types across different repair techniques.
Area of Science:
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Trauma Surgery
- Infectious Disease
Background:
- Rigid internal fixation (RIF) for midfacial fractures involves extensive exposure and manipulation.
- Concerns exist regarding the potential for increased postoperative infection rates with RIF.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the comparative risk of postoperative infections associated with RIF versus other midfacial fracture repair methods.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of midfacial trauma cases (1984-1991) at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.
- Patients categorized by repair method: intermaxillary fixation, wire fixation, or RIF plates.
- Postoperative infection data collected via chart review and telephone interviews; minimum 3-month follow-up.
Main Results:
- No statistically significant difference in the incidence or type of postoperative infections was observed among the three treatment groups.
- Wound infections and sinusitis were monitored as key infection indicators.
Conclusions:
- Rigid internal fixation implants do not appear to elevate the risk of postoperative infections in midfacial fracture repair.
- Current evidence suggests RIF is a safe option regarding infection control for these injuries.