ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of antithrombotics on the occurrence of maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms, and to determine if these haemorrhagic symptoms are predictors of maxillofacial fractures. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was conducted of consecutive patients with maxillofacial trauma who had been admitted to the emergency department of four hospitals in the Netherlands. This study compared five haemorrhagic symptoms (peri-orbital haematoma, raccoon eyes, epistaxis, subconjunctival ecchymosis, and intra-oral haematoma) between patients not-using (NUA) and using (UA) of antithrombotics, and whether these maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms served as predictors for maxillofacial fractures. RESULTS: Out of the 1005 patients, 812 (81%) belonged to the NUA group, and 193 (19%) to the UA group. UA patients exhibited higher frequencies of peri-orbital hematoma (54% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), raccoon eyes (10% vs. 5%, p = 0.01), and subconjunctival ecchymoses (16% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). In NUA, peri-orbital hematoma (OR = 2.5, p < 0.001), epistaxis (OR = 4.1, p < 0.001), subconjunctival ecchymosis (OR = 2.3, p = 0.02), and intra-oral hematoma (OR = 7.1, p < 0.001) were significant fracture predictors. Among UA, peri-orbital hematoma (OR = 2.2, p = 0.04), epistaxis (OR = 5.4, p < 0.001), subconjunctival ecchymosis (OR = 3.7, p = 0.008), and intra-oral hematoma (OR = 22.0, p < 0.001) were significant fracture predictors. CONCLUSION: Maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms were observed more frequently in the UA group than in the NUA group. However, in both groups, maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms appear to be predictors of maxillofacial fractures. Caution is warranted in attributing these symptoms solely to antithrombotic use during emergency department assessments.
Subject(s)
Ecchymosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Epistaxis , Humans , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Middle Aged , Ecchymosis/etiology , Epistaxis/etiology , Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Maxillofacial Injuries , Netherlands/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Hemorrhage , HematomaABSTRACT
PURPOSE: With the increased use of both e-bike and conventional bicycle, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased accordingly. To determine whether there are differences in maxillofacial injuries between these 2 types of bicycle accidents, e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for all the consecutive patients with maxillofacial injury due to e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents attending the emergency department of 4 hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2018 and October 2019. Primary outcomes are maxillofacial fractures present or absent and the severity of maxillofacial injury using the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS) after e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess differences in risk between an e-bike and conventional bicycle accident, where age, alcohol use, and comorbidities were added as covariates, for maxillofacial fractures, dental injury, and severe maxillofacial fractures. RESULTS: In total, 311 patients were included (73 e-bikers and 238 conventional cyclists). Sex distribution was equal in both groups (45% male vs 55% female). The e-bike group was older (66 vs 53 median age in years, P < .001) and had more comorbidities (0 vs 1, P < .001), while alcohol use was higher in the conventional bicycle group (32% vs 16%, P = .008). e-Bikers sustained midfacial fractures more frequently (47% vs 34%, P = .04), whereas conventional cyclists more often had mandibular fractures (1% vs 11%, P = .01). Although median Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and FISS scores did not differ between e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents, severe maxillofacial fractures (FISS score ≥ 2) were observed more often in the conventional cyclists (45% vs 25%, P = .04). No significant differences in risk of midfacial, mandibular, and severe maxillofacial fractures were found between e-bikers and conventional cyclists irrespective of their age, alcohol use, and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Both the distribution and the severe maxillofacial fractures differed between the e-bike and conventional bicycle accident patients. Patient-specific characteristics, such as age, alcohol use, and comorbidities, may have a greater influence on sustaining maxillofacial fractures than the type of bicycle ridden.
