Search

Identifying groups of patients with homogeneous characteristics and comparable outcomes improves clinical activity, patients' management, and scientific research. This study aims to define mild, moderate, and severe facial trauma by validating two cut-off values of the Comprehensive Facial Injury (CFI) score and describing their foreseeable clinical needs to create a useful guide in patient management, starting from the first evaluation. The individual CFI score, overall surgical time, and length of hospitalization are calculated for a sample of 1400 facial-injured patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC) is tested, and a CFI score ≥4 is selected to discriminate patients undergoing surgical management under general anesthesia (Positive Predictive Value, PPV of 91.4%), while a CFI score ≥10 is selected to identify patients undergoing major surgical procedures (Negative Predictive Value, NPV of 91.7%). These results are enhanced by the consensual trend of Length of Stay outcome. The use of the CFI score allows us to distinguish between the "Mild facial trauma" with a low risk of hospitalization for surgical treatment, the "Moderate facial trauma" with a high probability of surgical treatment, and the "Severe facial trauma" that requires long-lasting surgery and hospital stay, with an increased incidence of Intensive Care Unit admission.

Aim : the purpose of this work is to present an innovative protocol for virtual planning and surgical navigation in post-oncological mandibular reconstruction through fibula free flap. In order to analyze its applicability, an evaluation of accuracy for the surgical protocol has been performed. Methods : 21 patients surgically treated for mandibular neoplasm have been included in the analysis. The Brainlab Vector Vision 3.0 ® software for surgical navigation has been used for preoperative surgical planning and intra-operative navigation. A post-operative accuracy evaluation has been performed matching the position of mandibular landmarks between pre-operative and post-operative CT scans. Results : the maximal discrepancy observed was included between -3.4 mm and +3.2 mm, assuming negative values for under correction and positive values for overcorrection. An average grade of accuracy included between 0.06 ± 0.58 mm and 0.43 ± 0.68 mm has been observed for every mandibular landmark examined, except for mandibular angles that showed a mean discrepancy value included between 1.36 ± 1.73 mm and 1.46 ± 1.02 mm when compared to preoperative measurements. Conclusion : a satisfying level of accuracy has been observed in the protocol presented, which appears to be more versatile if compared to closed custom-made systems. The technique described may represent a valid option for selected patients, but it cannot be considered for routine activity because of the complexity of the method, the mobility of the jaw, the necessity of surgical navigator and the long surgical learning curve that is required.