Do Radiologists and Surgeons Speak the Same Language? A Retrospective Review of Facial Trauma

Objective: The objective of the present study is to examine the concordance of facial fracture classifications in patients with trauma who underwent surgery and to assess the epidemiologic findings associated with facial trauma.

Materials and methods: Patients with trauma who underwent facial CT examination and inpatient operative intervention during a 1-year period were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographic characteristics, the mechanism of injury, the radiology report, the surgical diagnosis, and clinical indications were reviewed. Fractures were documented according to bone type and were classified into the following subtypes: LeFort 1, LeFort 2, LeFort 3, naso-orbital-ethmoidal, zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC), orbital, and mandibular. Concordance between the radiology and surgery reports was assessed.

Results: A total of 115,000 visits to the emergency department resulted in 9000 trauma activations and 3326 facial CT examinations. One hundred fifty-six patients (4.7%) underwent facial surgical intervention, and 133 cases met criteria for inclusion in the study. The mean injury severity score was 10.2 (range, 1-75). The three most frequently noted injury mechanisms were as follows: assault (77 cases [57.9%]), a traffic accident (21 cases [15.8%]), and a fall (20 cases [15%]). The three most frequently noted facial bone fractures were as follows: mandible (100 cases [75.2%]), maxilla (53 cases [39.8%]), and orbit (53 cases [39.8%]). The five descriptors most frequently found in the radiology and surgery reports were the mandibular angle (25 cases), the orbital floor (25 cases), the mandibular parasymphysis (22 cases), the mandibular body (21 cases), and ZMC fractures (19 cases). A classification was not specified in 31 of the radiologic impressions (22.5%), with 28 of 31 radiologists expecting the surgeon to read the full report. The descriptors used in the radiology and surgery reports matched in 73 cases (54.9%) and differed in 51 cases (38.3%). No classifications were used by one or both specialties in nine cases (6.8%).

Conclusion: For 38.3% of patients needing facial surgery, descriptors used in the radiologic and surgery reports differed. Speaking a common language can potentially improve communication between the radiology and surgery services and can help expedite management of cases requiring surgery.