摘要
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 Comparison of four kinds of trauma score method for oral and maxillofacial injury, to explore the best score method to evaluate the oral maxillofacial injury. Methods Retrospective analysis of 80 cases of maxillofacial fracture patients clinical data selected in our hospital, analysed the cause of injury, the parts and damage number of fracture.ISS, NISS, RISS and MISS methods was taken to evaluated injury severity. Results Evaluated by fracture site:fracture of maxilla, mandible fracture, fracture of zygomatic bone in the NISS, RISS difference with no statistically significant, zygomatic fracture in standard NISS ISS score difference with no statistically significant; other groups compared to score differences were statistically significance. Accorded by number of packets:single fracture, double fracture in RISS, NISS score with no statistically significant; other groups were compared the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion MISS score method not only to distinguish the injury severity, but also can evaluation damage degree,has higher specificity and sensitivity, more suitable for evaluating the damage of oral and maxillofacial damage.
出处
《湖南师范大学学报（医学版）》
2015年第4期117-120,共4页
Journal of Hunan Normal University(Medical Sciences)
关键词
创伤评分法
口腔颌面损伤
颌面骨折
功能损伤
Trauma score method
Oral and maxillofacial injury
Maxillofacial fracture
Injury
