Archives of Craniofacial Surgery (대한두개안면성형외과학회지)

Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (대한두개안면성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Objective Outcomes of Closed Reduction According to the Type of Nasal Bone Fracture

  • Kang, Chang Min (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Han, Dong Gil (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • Received : 2016.11.27
  • Accepted : 2017.03.07
  • Published : 2017.03.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Nasal fractures have a tendency of resulting in structural or functional complications, and the results can vary according to the type of nasal bone fracture. The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective postoperative results according to the type of nasal bone fractures. Methods: We reviewed 313 patients who had a closed reduction of nasal bone fracture. The classification of nasal bone fracture by Stranc and Robertson was used to characterize the fracture type: frontal impact group type I (FI), frontal impact group type II (FII), lateral impact group type I (LI), lateral impact group type II (LII), and comminuted fracture group (C). For each patient, we tried to use the same axial image section of computed tomographic (CT) scans before and immediately after operation. Postoperative outcomes were classified into 4 grades: excellent (E), good (G), fair (F), and poor (P). We also analyzed postoperative complications by fracture type. Results: Regarding the postoperative CT images, 189 subjects showed E results, 99 subjects showed G, 18 subjects showed F, and 7 subjects showed P reduction. The rate of operation results graded as E by each fracture type was 66.67% in FI, 52.0% in FII, 64.21% in LI, 62.79% in LII, and 21.74% in C. Complications of FI (7.14%), LII (13.95%), and C (13.04%) groups occurred more than in the FII (4.00%) and LI (4.21%) groups. Conclusion: It seems that the operation result by fracture type was better in the FI, LI, and LII type than the FII and C type; after one month, however, LII type showed more complications than other types. The septal fracture can be thought to affect early reduction results in nasal bone fractures.

Keywords

References

  1. Oh HK, Park YJ, Kim HS, Ryu JY, Kook MS, Park HJ, et al. A recent 5-year retrospective study on nasal bone fracture. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;34:230-6.
  2. Chung SH, Park J, Choe J, Baek SM. Clinical analysis of satisfaction of nasal bone reduction. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;21:98490.
  3. Hong SB, Choi BW, Suh IS, Ha JH. Clinical & radiological evaluation of the nasal bone fractures. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;23:1572-82.
  4. Lee JH, Park WY, Nam HJ, Kim YH. Complications of the nasal bone fractures according to the stranc classification. J Korean Cleft PalateCraniofac Assoc 2008;9:62-6.
  5. Muraoka M, Nakai Y. Twenty years of statistics and observation of facial bone fracture. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1998;538:261-5.
  6. Han DG, Kim TS. The effect of half day nasal packing in results of closed reduction of nasal bone fracture. Arch Craniofac Surg 2012;13:119-24.
  7. Stranc MF, Robertson GA. A classification of injuries of the nasal skeleton. Ann Plast Surg 1979;2:468-74.
  8. Lee BM, Han DG. Acute bone remodeling after reduction of nasal bone fracture on computed tomography imaging. Arch Craniofac Surg 2014;15:63-9.
  9. Rhee SC, Kim YK, Cha JH, Kang SR, Park HS. Septal fracture in simple nasal bone fracture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:45-52.
  10. Park WY, Kim YH. A clinical study of the nasal bone fracture according to stranc classification. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;35:289-94.
  11. Lim KR, Kim HI, Ahn SM, Hwang SM, Jung YH, Song JK. Clinical analysis of the nasal bone fracture. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2011;12:81-5.

Cited by

  1. Delayed reconstruction of posttraumatic facial deformities vol.61, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2018.61.12.740
  2. A Clinical Study on 299 Cases of Nasal Bone Fractures vol.112, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5631/jibirin.112.471
  3. Septal fractures predict poor outcomes after closed nasal reduction: Retrospective review and survey : Nasal Bone Fracture vol.129, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27781
  4. The clinical usefulness of closed reduction of nasal bone using only a periosteal elevator with a rubber band vol.20, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2019.00388
  5. Lateral nasal wall abscess following manipulation of fractured nasal bones vol.12, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2019-232089
  6. Long-term postoperative satisfaction and complications in nasal bone fracture patients according to fracture type, site, and severity vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2019.00626
  7. Nasal Bone Fractures: Analysis of 1193 Cases with an Emphasis on Coincident Adjacent Fractures vol.22, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2020.0026
  8. Quality of life of patients with nasal bone fracture after closed reduction vol.21, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2020.00507