论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较四种创伤评分法对口腔颌面损伤的评分,探讨口腔颌面损伤评价的最佳评分方法。方法 :回顾性分析我院收治的80例颌面部骨折患者临床资料,分析致伤原因、骨折部位和损伤数量;并分别采用创伤严重度评分(injury severity score,ISS)、新损伤严重度评分(new injury severity score,NISS)、改良创伤严重度评分(revised injury severity score,RISS)和颌面损伤严重度评分(Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score,MISS)对患者创伤严重程度进行评分。结果 :按骨折部位分组评分:上颌骨骨折、下颌骨骨折、颧骨骨折在NISS、RISS两种评分标准下得分差异无统计学意义;颧骨骨折在ISS、NISS评分标准下得分差异无统计学意义;其余各组间得分相比差异均具有统计学意义。按损伤数量分组评分:单处骨折、双处骨折在NISS、RISS评分标准下得分差异均无统计学意义;其余各组间评分相比差异均具有统计学意义。结论 :MISS评分法不仅能区分损伤的严重程度,还能评价功能的损伤程度,具有更高的特异性和灵敏度,更适用于口腔颌面外科损伤评价。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the scores of oral and maxillofacial injuries by four kinds of traumatic scoring methods and to explore the best method of evaluating oral and maxillofacial injuries. Methods: The clinical data of 80 patients with maxillofacial fractures treated in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The cause of injury, the number of fractures and the number of injuries were analyzed. The injury severity score (ISS), new injury severity score The severity of traumatic injury was scored by using the new injury severity score (NISS), the revised injury severity score (RISS) and the maxillofacial injury severity score (MISS). Results: According to the fracture site grouping score, there was no significant difference in maxillary fracture, mandibular fracture and zygomatic fracture score between NISS and RISS. There was no significant difference in scores of zygomatic fractures between ISS and NISS Significance; scores between the other groups were statistically significant differences. According to the number of injury grouping score: single fracture, double fractures in the NISS, RISS score standard score difference was not statistically significant; the rest of the score between the groups were statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The MISS score method can not only distinguish the severity of injury, but also evaluate the degree of functional impairment, with higher specificity and sensitivity, and more suitable for oral and maxillofacial surgical injury evaluation.