Facial Paralysis in Longitudinal versus Oblique and Otic-Sparing versus Non Otic-Sparing Temporal Bone Fractures

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of temporal bone fractures using traditional (longitudinal vs. transverse) and otic involvement (otic sparing vs. non-otic sparing) classification schemes and their relationship with the development of facial paralysis.METHODS:        Design:           Retrospective Case Series        Setting:         Tertiary Government Hospital       Participants:         Records of 49 patients diagnosed with temporal bone fracture in our institution from August 2016 to June 2018.RESULTS: A total of 41 records of patients with temporal bone fractures, 32 males, 9 females, aged 5 to 70 years-old (mean 37.5-years-old) were included.  In terms of laterality 23 (56%) involved the right and 17 (41%) the left side.  Traditionally classified, 32 (78%) were longitudinal and 9 (22%) were transverse. Using newer classification based on otic involvement and non-otic involvement, 38 (93%) were otic-sparing and 3 (7%) were non otic-sparing. Only 9 (22%) out of 41 total fracture patients developed facial paralysis, involving 7 of the 32 longitudinal fractures and 2 of the 9 transverse fractures, or 8 of the 38 otic-sparing and 1 out of 3 non otic-sparing fractures.CONCLUSION: Because of the small sample size, no conclusions regarding the proportion of temporal bone fractures using traditional (longitudinal vs. transverse) and otic involvement (otic sparing vs. non-otic sparing) classification schemes and their relationship with the development of facial paralysis can be drawn in this study.KEYWORDS head injuries; head trauma; skull fracture; temporal bone fracture; motor vehicles; traffic accidents; facial paralysis