QoL Life Data.xlsx

<strong>Materials and Methods</strong> The study was held in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department and Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, from November 2019 to October 2021 after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC: 924/2019). The study included patients between 18-70 years. Patients with associated diseases like cysts or tumors of the jaw bones, pregnant women, and those with underlying psychological issues were excluded from the study. The patients were assessed 8-12 weeks after surgical intervention. A data schedule was prepared to document age, sex, and fracture type. The study consisted of 182 subjects divided into two groups of 91 each (Group A: Mild to moderate facial injury and Group B: Severe facial injury) based on the severity of maxillofacial fractures and facial injury. Informed consent was obtained from each of the study participants. We followed Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS) to determine the severity of facial fractures and injuries. The face is divided horizontally into the mandibular, mid-facial, and upper facial thirds. Fractures in these thirds are given points based on their type (Table 1). Injuries with a total score above 4.4 were considered severe facial injuries (Group A), and those with a total score below 4.4 were considered mild/ moderate facial injuries (Group B). The QOL was compared between the two groups. Meticulous management of hard and soft tissue injuries in our state-of-the-art tertiary care hospital was implemented. All elective cases were surgically treated at least 72 hours after the initial trauma. The facial fractures were adequately reduced and fixed with high–end Titanium miniplates and screws (AO Principles of Fracture Management). Soft tissue injuries were managed by wound debridement, removal of foreign bodies, and layered wound closure. Adequate pain-relieving medication was prescribed to the patients postoperatively for effective pain control. The QOL of the subjects was assessed using the 'Twenty-point Quality of life assessment in facial trauma patients in Indian population' assessment tool. This tool contains 20 questions and uses a five-point Likert response scale. The Twenty – point quality of life assessment tool included two zones: Zone 1 (Psychosocial impact) and Zone 2 (Functional and esthetic impact), with ten questions (domains) each (Table 2). The scores for each question ranged from 1- 5, the higher score denoting better Quality of life. Accordingly, the score in each zone for a patient ranged from 10 -50, and the total scores of both zones were recorded to determine the QOL. The sum of both zones determined the prognosis following surgery (Table 2). The data collected was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 22(Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Descriptive data were presented in the form of frequency and percentage for categorical variables and in the form of mean, median, standard deviation, and quartiles for continuous variables. Since the data were not following normal distribution, a non-parametric test was used. QOL scores were compared between the study groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. P value &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

<strong>材料与方法</strong> 本研究于2019年11月至2021年10月在马尼帕尔卡斯特巴医院口腔颌面外科开展，已获得机构伦理委员会批准（IEC: 924/2019）。本研究纳入年龄18~70岁的患者，排除合并颌骨囊肿、肿瘤等疾病者、孕妇及存在基础精神疾病的患者。于手术干预后8~12周对患者进行评估。制定资料记录表以记录患者年龄、性别及骨折类型。本研究共纳入182名受试者，根据颌面骨折及面部损伤的严重程度分为两组，每组各91例：A组为轻中度面部损伤，B组为重度面部损伤。所有研究受试者均签署知情同意书。本研究采用面部损伤严重程度量表（Facial Injury Severity Scale, FISS）评估面部骨折与损伤的严重程度：将面部水平划分为下颌区、面中部及面上部三部分，根据各区域骨折类型赋予对应分值（见表1）。总分＞4.4者判定为重度面部损伤（A组），总分＜4.4者判定为轻中度面部损伤（B组）。比较两组患者的生活质量（Quality of Life, QOL）。

在本现代化三级医院中，对软硬组织损伤实施精细化处理。所有择期手术均在初始创伤后至少72小时施行。面部骨折均采用高端钛微型钢板及螺钉进行充分复位固定（遵循骨折治疗AO原则）。软组织损伤则通过清创术、异物取出及分层缝合进行处理。术后为患者开具足量镇痛药物以实现有效疼痛管控。

采用针对印度人群的面部创伤患者20条目生活质量评估工具（Twenty-point Quality of life assessment in facial trauma patients in Indian population）评估受试者的生活质量。该工具包含20个条目，采用5级李克特评分量表。评估工具分为两个维度：维度1（社会心理影响）与维度2（功能与美学影响），各包含10个条目（领域）（见表2）。每个条目的分值范围为1~5，分值越高代表生活质量越好。因此，患者各维度的分值范围为10~50，记录两个维度的总分以评估生活质量。两维度总分用于判定术后预后情况（见表2）。

收集的数据录入Microsoft Excel电子表格，采用IBM SPSS Statistics 22版本（纽约州阿蒙克：IBM公司）进行分析。分类变量以频数及百分比形式呈现描述性统计结果，连续变量以均值、中位数、标准差及四分位数间距呈现。由于数据不符合正态分布，采用非参数检验。组间生活质量评分比较采用曼-惠特尼U检验（Mann-Whitney U test）。以P值＜0.05为差异具有统计学意义。