4.1 Article

Facial Soft Tissue Injuries in Pediatric Patients

期刊

FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 516-527

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727246

关键词

pediatric dog bites; pediatric facial trauma; postnatal facial injuries

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soft tissue injuries of the head and neck are common reasons for medical evaluation and treatment in pediatric populations, with evolving incidence and types of injuries. This article aims to provide a thorough understanding of the evaluation and management of pediatric soft tissue trauma, with a focus on special considerations for pediatric patients and their unique medical needs.
Soft tissue injuries of the head and neck are a common reason for medical evaluation and treatment in pediatric populations with some unique and important considerations when compared with adults. The incidence and type of injuries continue to evolve with the adoption of new safety measures, technology advancements, and education of the general population. The goal of this article is to provide the reader with a thorough understanding of the evaluation and management of pediatric soft tissue trauma including the initial workup, physical examination, appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy, and setting for surgical repair. Additionally, the pediatric anesthetic considerations for evaluation and repair in regard to local anesthesia, sedation, and general anesthesia are described in detail. There is a focus on dog bites, perinatal injuries, and child abuse as these entities are distinctive to a pediatric population and have particular management recommendations. Lastly, application of the reconstructive ladder as it applies to children is supported with specific case examples and figures. Although there are many parallels to the management of soft tissue injury in adults, we will highlight the special situations that occur in pediatric populations, which are imperative for the facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon to understand.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据