Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis reveals age-dependent fracture characteristics and management differences in patients.
Background: Patient age influences diagnosis, operative planning, and recovery in facial fracture care. We aimed to delineate age-dependent patterns in fracture sites, injury mechanisms, and management across pediatric, working-age, and elderly cohorts at a regional trauma center. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 4,975 patients with CT-confirmed facial fractures (2016–2021), stratified into <20, 20–64, and ≥65 years. Fracture sites, mechanisms, and management (conservative, closed reduction, ORIF) were recorded. Group differences used chi-square/ANOVA with Holm adjustment. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of operative management. Results: The cohort was predominantly male (~3:1). Nasal fractures were most common (42.3%) but declined with age (60.1%, 41.7%, 31.5%). Zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) and orbital fractures increased with age (ZMC: 10.3%, 20.7%, 30.8%; orbital: 14.2%, 25.6%, 28.1%). Mandibular fractures were more frequent in younger patients (11.6% vs 5.7% in ≥65). In the elderly, falls (slip/roll/fall-down combined 52.6%) predominated, whereas assault and sports were proportionally higher in younger groups. Mechanism was strongly associated with fracture site (p < 0.001). Operative treatment was less frequent in the elderly, in whom conservative care predominated. In multivariable analysis, increasing age independently predicted lower odds of surgery (p < 0.001), whereas multiple fractures were the strongest predictor of operative intervention (adjusted OR = 2.50, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Facial fracture patterns, mechanisms, and treatment differ by age. Findings support age-tailored prevention—fall prevention for older adults and high-energy injury mitigation for younger cohorts—and individualized strategies balancing functional priorities against systemic risk in the elderly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: