Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 990


Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 236-240

Maxillofacial injuries among trauma patients undergoing head computerized tomography; A Ugandan experience

1 Department of Radiology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda
2 Department of Radiology, Mulago National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda
3 Department of Pathology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda
4 Department of Dentistry, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Adriane Kamulegeya
Department of Dentistry, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.219950

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate epidemiological features of maxillofacial fractures within trauma patients who had head and neck computed tomography (CT) scan at the Mulago National referral hospital. Methods: CT scan records of trauma patients who had head scans at the Department of Radiology over 1-year period were accessed. Data collected included sociodemographic factors, type and etiology of injury, and concomitant maxillofacial injuries. Results: A total of 1330 trauma patients underwent head and neck CT scan in the 1-year study period. Out of these, 130 were excluded due to incomplete or unclear records and no evidence of injury. Of the remaining 1200, 32% (387) had maxillofacial fractures. The median age of the patients with maxillofacial fractures was 28 (range = 18–80) years and 18–27 age group was most common at 47.5%. Road traffic accidents constituted 49.1% of fractures. The single most affected isolated bone was the frontal bone (23%). The number of maxillofacial bones fractured was predicted by age group (df = 3 F = 5.358, P = 0.001), association with other fractures (df = 1 F = 5.317, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Good matched case–control prospective studies are needed to enable us tease out the finer difference in the circumstances and pattern of injury if we are to design appropriate preventive measures.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded112    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal