Introduction: Paediatric maxillofacial trauma poses a significant threat to children and their well-being, with increasing incidence globally, particularly in developing nations. This study, conducted over 5 years at a private medical college and hospital in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, analysed 225 cases of paediatric maxillofacial injuries, providing a comprehensive overview of incidence, challenges and management strategies. Materials and Methods: The male predominance (2:1 ratio) aligns with existing literature, emphasising the higher susceptibility of boys to traumatic injuries. A concerning 40% of cases involved a loss of consciousness, underscoring the severity of these incidents. Timely medical attention is crucial, as revealed by the finding that approximately 20% of patients sought help more than 24 h after the incident. Results: Head injuries, identified in 35 patients, exhibited a positive correlation with delayed admission times, emphasising the need for prompt evaluation, especially for potential intracranial complications. The study explored causes, with self-falls being the most prevalent (45%), while child abuse instances were absent. Age-specific patterns were noted, emphasising the need for targeted preventive measures. Soft-tissue injuries (58% of cases) were dominated by lacerations and abrasions, with age-specific correlations providing insights for clinicians. Hard-tissue injuries, including dentoalveolar and mandibular fractures (229 cases), showcased a prevalence of displaced fractures, primarily managed conservatively. Surgical interventions, especially open reduction and internal fixation, were common for mandibular fractures. Conclusion: This study contributes nuanced insights into paediatric maxillofacial trauma, informing clinical practices and guiding preventive strategies. Statistically significant associations between various factors offer a foundation for evidence-based practices, ultimately aiming to reduce morbidity and mortality rates in the paediatric population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: