Facial trauma management: A nationwide data collection on practice patterns and patient care in oral and maxillofacial surgery in Germany

This study aims to analyze facial trauma management, practice patterns, and patient care in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) in Germany by using a dynamic online questionnaire with up to 54 questions. The survey, comprising single/multiple-choice and open-ended questions, was implemented via SurveyMonkey® and distributed to OMFS departments and surgeons in Germany. Data was analyzed anonymously and descriptively. Eighty-four OMFS departments and surgeons participated, revealing diverse facial trauma management. Monthly facial trauma patient volumes ranged from 0 to 10 (37.8 %) to more than 75 (4.88 %). Computed tomography (CT) was the primary imaging modality (82.05 %), supplemented by cone-beam CT and panoramic radiographs (56.41 % each). Orbital floor reconstruction primarily involved transconjunctival access (42.86 %) and prefabricated titanium meshes (69.01 %). Champy mini-plate osteosynthesis mainly managed mandibular angle fractures (51.47 %). Variability persists in the management of mandibular condylar process fractures in Germany. While a significant number of participants favor conservative treatment for condylar process fractures overall (26.87 %), the rate of surgical intervention for condylar head fractures is notably higher than international standards (59.42 %). Endoscopic techniques were rare (18.84 %). The management of standard thrombosis prophylaxis and perioperative antibiotic administration varied. Differences in specific facial trauma management were identified and assumed to be based on internal experiences and structural and personnel resources.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2025-04-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.03.013
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.03
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Facial trauma management: A nationwide data collection on practice patterns and patient care in oral and maxillofacial surgery in Germany

Andreas Neff, Daniel G. E. Thiem, Andreas Pabst, Marco Rainer Kesting et al.
5 citations
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
10.03
article

Facial trauma management: A nationwide data collection on practice patterns and patient care in oral and maxillofacial surgery in Germany

Andreas Neff, Daniel G. E. Thiem, Andreas Pabst, Marco Rainer Kesting, Anne-Kathrin Bär, Philipp Becker, Alexander‐Nicolai Zeller, Lukas Benedikt Seifert, Max Heiland, Diana Heimes, Frederic Bouffleur, Jörg Wiltfang
article en
5 citations

Abstract

This study aims to analyze facial trauma management, practice patterns, and patient care in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) in Germany by using a dynamic online questionnaire with up to 54 questions. The survey, comprising single/multiple-choice and open-ended questions, was implemented via SurveyMonkey® and distributed to OMFS departments and surgeons in Germany. Data was analyzed anonymously and descriptively. Eighty-four OMFS departments and surgeons participated, revealing diverse facial trauma management. Monthly facial trauma patient volumes ranged from 0 to 10 (37.8 %) to more than 75 (4.88 %). Computed tomography (CT) was the primary imaging modality (82.05 %), supplemented by cone-beam CT and panoramic radiographs (56.41 % each). Orbital floor reconstruction primarily involved transconjunctival access (42.86 %) and prefabricated titanium meshes (69.01 %). Champy mini-plate osteosynthesis mainly managed mandibular angle fractures (51.47 %). Variability persists in the management of mandibular condylar process fractures in Germany. While a significant number of participants favor conservative treatment for condylar process fractures overall (26.87 %), the rate of surgical intervention for condylar head fractures is notably higher than international standards (59.42 %). Endoscopic techniques were rare (18.84 %). The management of standard thrombosis prophylaxis and perioperative antibiotic administration varied. Differences in specific facial trauma management were identified and assumed to be based on internal experiences and structural and personnel resources.

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial SurgeryVol. 53(7)
Philipps University of Marburg (DE), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Heidelberg University (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), University Hospital of Basel (CH), Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE), Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (DE), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE), Bundeswehrzentralkrankenhaus Koblenz (DE), Bundeswehr, University of Lübeck (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
10.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.