Kite String (Manjha) Injuries Among Children: Single Center Experience Over Four Years.

We reviewed hospital records for kite-string injuries among children over four years (2017-2022). Of 42 affected children, mortality was 9.5%. The mean (SD) Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS) was 8.02 (2.66), with passively involved children facing greater severity [mean (SD) PTS, 5.58 (2.23)]. Kite-string injuries, alarmingly, endanger even bystanders, urging stricter preventive strategies.

Comparative Evaluation of Nasolabial Flap, Buccal Fat Pad and Platysma Myocutaneous Flap for Reconstruction of Oral Sub Mucous Fibrosis Defects.

Moderately advanced (stage III) and advanced (stage IV a & b) OSMF requires surgical intervention for management A number of options are available for reconstruction of post OSMF oral cavity defects. In our study we retrospectively compared buccal fat pad, nasolabial flap and platysma flap for reconstruction of the buccal mucosal defects. Patient records were obtained from the medical records section of the Institute and divided into three groups; group A (buccal fat pad), group B (nasolabial group) and group C (platysma flap). Maximal mouth opening and intercommisural distance were the primary outcomes. Kruskal Wallis test was used to test the mean difference between three groups. Mann-Whitney test was used for intergroup comparisons. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to evaluate the mean difference in outcomes at each follow up interval. A p value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. After 1 year follow up patients in platysma group had significantly better mouth opening (39.84 ± 1.65 mm) compared to both buccal fat pad (36.69 ± 3.41 mm) and nasolabial groups (37.94 ± 0.43 mm). Inter commisural distance was significantly better in patients reconstructed with platysma flap (59.21 ± 0.99 mm) compared to both buccal fat pad (54.11 ± 1 mm) and nasolabial flap (56.84 ± 1.48 mm). Platysma flap lead to significantly better maximal mouth opening compared to both nasolabial and buccal fat pad. Both buccal fat pad and nasolabial lead to comparable mouth opening. Inter commissural distance is maximum with platysma flap followed by nasolabial flap and buccal fat pad.

Efficacy of arthrocentesis with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroid in the treatment of internal derangement of temporomandibular joint.

Introduction: Various techniques have been used to treat internal temporomandibular joint derangements (TMJ ID), with arthrocentesis one of the most successful in reducing symptoms and promoting function. In cases of TMJ ID, this research study compares and evaluates the efficacy of arthrocentesis with injections of corticosteroids (CS) or hyaluronic acid (HA). Methods: This prospective randomized, non-blinded study involving 91 patients with symptoms of TMJ ID treated by arthrocentesis followed by intra articular injection of 1 ml of either corticosteroid (group A) or HA (group B) . Maximum mouth opening, lateral excursive movements, TMJ pain at rest and during function, masticatory efficiency, pre-treatment functional TMJ limitation and subjective judgment of efficacy of treatment were assessed with millimeter scale. All the parameters measured before the procedure and further followed at 1st week, 1st month, 3rd month and 6th month post-procedure. Results: Maximum mouth opening post procedure improved significantly in Group B at follow up visits (P < 0.05). Subjects in group B showed significant reduction in pain at rest (P = 0.001) at 1 week and 1 month follow up & increased masticatory efficiency at 6 months (P = 0.042) as compared to that of group A subjects. Conclusion: Injection of HA post-TMJ arthrocentesis is found be comparatively more effective method of treating TMD IDs with resultant decrease in pain & improved functionality of the jaw. TMJ arthrocentesis along with injection of HA could serve as a possible alternative to treat chronic TMJ pain sufferers who are unresponsive to conservative medical therapies.

How far we have come with the Management of Condylar Fractures? A Meta-Analysis of Closed Versus Open Versus Endoscopic Management.

Background: The treatment approaches for condylar fractures of the mandible include functional, closed reduction and open reduction-internal fixation. Recently endoscopic management of condylar fractures has been emphasized in the literature. We systematically review the studies comparing closed versus open versus endoscopic-assisted condyle fracture management with regard to the indications, effectiveness and complications of each modality. Methods: A total of 11 articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane and clinical trials.gov. Differences in means and risk ratios were used as principal summary measures with p value < 0.05 as significant. For detection of any possible biases in sample sizes, the OR and its 95% CI for each study were plotted against the number of participants. Chi-square test, I2 test and the Cochrane bias tool were used to assess the bias in and across studies. Results: Except for deviation on opening there was no significant difference between open versus closed treatment of condylar fractures. Endoscopic approach and open surgical approaches differed only in terms of operating time and TMJ pain. There was no significant difference in facial nerve injury among the two groups. Discussion: Closed reduction is particularly indicated for minimally displaced fractures; for moderate to severe displacement, open reduction is preferred. Open reduction can also be preferred over endoscopic approaches as there is no significant advantage of using latter. Limitations of the study included specific treatment according to the site of fracture not addressed, limited data regarding pediatric condylar fracture, lack of homogenous classification schemes, etc.

What is the Optimal Reconstructive Option for Oral Submucous Fibrosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Buccal Pad of Fat Versus Conventional Nasolabial and Extended Nasolabial Flap Versus Platysma Myocutaneous Flap.

BACKGROUND: To systematically review the reconstructive options for oral submucous fibrosis utilizing buccal pad of fat versus conventional nasolabial and extended nasolabial flap versus platysma myocutaneous flap. OBJECTIVE: The succeeding systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the following question, what is the optimal reconstructive option for oral submucous fibrosis? STUDY DESIGN: A systematic electronic and manual database search revealed five relevant articles comparing buccal fat pad, nasolabial flap and platysma myocutaneous flap as reconstructive options in oral submucous fibrosis. METHODS: A total of 1538 articles were found across PubMed, Cochrane and clinical trials.gov. Only five relevant articles were selected for the study. Quality assessment of the selected studies was executed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Statistical software RevMan (Review Manager [Computer program], version 5.3, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) was used for meta-analysis. Differences in means and risk ratios were used as principal summary measures. The overall estimated effect was categorized as significant where p < 0.05. RESULTS: Three of the five studies selected favoured buccal fat pad over nasolabial flap owing to its ease of harvest and lesser number of post-operative complications. One study favoured nasolabial flap because of the progressive increase in mouth opening and bulk of the tissue obtained for reconstruction. A single study favoured platysma flap over nasolabial flap although no difference was obtained in mouth opening, owing its excellent tissue bulk, fewer complications compared to the nasolabial flap. CONCLUSION: Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn as there are number of limitations in the studies included. However, a general consensus has been towards favouring buccal fat pad over nasolabial flap. The platysma flap owing to its excellent tissue bulk and fewer complications can be considered as an alternative when dealing with defects which are challenging to reconstruct with the buccal fat pad.

Magnitude of Gonial Angle Influence on the Commonness of Mandibular Angle Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to review the literature on the influence of gonial angle on mandibular angle fracture. The present systematic review addresses the following focus question: Does the magnitude of gonial angle influence the incidence of mandibular angle fractures? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted on databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science direct, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up to August 2019 to collect information about the effect of gonial angle, a skeletal morphological parameter with an incidence of fracture of the angle of the mandibular arch. Systematic literature review was performed to identify studies evaluating the effect of gonial angle in patients suffering from mandible fractures. Large retrospective studies were included and case reports were excluded. RESULTS: Fifteen hundred articles published before August 2019 were identified. One hundred and sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Two articles remained when exclusion criteria were applied. As measured in the two included studies containing 280 panoramic radiographs of mandibular fractures, the mean gonial angle of patients in the angle fracture group ranged from 126.8° ± 7.9° to 128.5° ± 5.4°. The mean gonial angle of patients in the nonangle fracture group ranged from 118.5° ± 4.4° to 122.3° ± 4.9°. The mean gonial angle of patients in the angle fracture group displayed a range from 118.9° to 134.7° (confidence interval [CI] 95% 5.89-8.05), whereas the mean gonial angle of patients in nonangle fracture group displayed a range from 114.1° to 127.2° (CI 95% 3.89-4.95). CONCLUSION: A high gonial angle is an important factor influencing the occurrence of mandibular angle fractures owing to the poorer quality of bone and reduced height at the ramus angle region, all of which necessitate a modification of osteosynthesis techniques.

Current concepts and management strategies in chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder.

The term renal osteodystrophy describes the pathological changes in bone structure in chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, this term fails to describe adequately the adverse changes in mineral and hormonal metabolism in CKD that have grave consequences for patient survival. CKD-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) is a broader, newly defined term that should be used instead of renal osteodystrophy to define the mineral, bone, hormonal, and calcific cardiovascular abnormalities that are seen in CKD. The new paradigm in the management of renal bone disease is to "think beyond the bones" and strive to improve cardiovascular outcomes and survival. This means treating other aspects of the disease process that go beyond merely controlling parathyroid hormone levels. Primary physicians need to take a proactive approach to the management of CKD-MBD because the disorder begins early in the course of CKD, well before a patient is referred to a nephrologist. This review outlines the evidence behind the understanding of CKD-MBD, its implications for overall mortality, and the latest recommendations for management of CKD-MBD in patients with predialysis CKD.

Bone disease in organ transplant patients: pathogenesis and management.

Bone disease is common in recipients of kidney, heart, lung, liver, and bone marrow transplants, and causes debilitating complications, such as osteoporosis, osteonecrosis, bone pain, and fractures. The frequency of fractures ranges from 6% to 45% for kidney transplant recipients to 22% to 42% for heart, lung, and liver transplant recipients. Bone disease in transplant patients is the sum of complex mechanisms that involve both preexisting bone disease before transplant and post-transplant bone loss due to the effects of immunosuppressive medications. Evaluation of bone disease should preferably start before the transplant or in the early post-transplant period and include assessment of bone mineral density and other metabolic factors that influence bone health. This requires close coordination between the primary care physician and transplant team. Patients should be stratified based on their fracture risk. Prevention and treatment include risk factor reduction, antiresorptive medications, such as bisphosphonates and calcitonin, calcitriol, and/or gonadal hormone replacement. A steroid-avoidance protocol may be considered.