Effect of helmet use on maxillofacial injuries due to bicycle and scooter accidents: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Maxillofacial injury is a common injury resulting from bicycle (including e-bike) and scooter accidents. With 80,000 admissions to emergency departments in 2019, bicycle accidents account for more than half of all traffic-related emergency department visits in the Netherlands. The United States reports approximately 130,000 injuries and 1000 fatalities related to cycling annually. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to examine the protective effect of helmets against maxillofacial injuries resulting from bicycle and scooter (including e-bike and e-scooter) accidents. After a systematic literature search, 14 studies were found to be eligible for this systematic review. Of these, 11 were included in the meta-analysis. None of the included studies focused on vehicles with motors (e-bikes and e-scooters); all focused only on non-motorized vehicles. All included studies were non-randomized, which could have led to bias in the pooled results. Data from the included studies were tested for heterogeneity using the binary random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method), and the odds ratio for the occurrence of maxillofacial injury in cyclists wearing a helmet versus those not wearing a helmet was calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. Patients who had worn a helmet suffered significantly fewer maxillofacial injuries than patients who had not, in bicycle accidents (odds ratio 0.682). In conclusion, wearing a helmet has a significant protective effect against maxillofacial injury, indicating the need for strict helmet legislation.

The Association of Helmet Use with the Occurrence of Maxillofacial Injuries Following Bicycle or Scooter Accidents: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Study Design

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective

Yearly, bicycle and scooter accidents in the Netherlands amount to 90 thousand emergency department visits. Maxillofacial injuries are common after cycling or scooter accidents. To prevent these injuries, helmet use might be beneficial. However, the effect of helmet use on maxillofacial injuries remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study is to assess the effect of helmet use on maxillofacial injuries in patients who had a bicycle or scooter accident.

Methods

We collected data from the emergency department of the Erasmus Medical Center in the period from October 2017 to October 2019. Patients that were involved in a bicycle or scooter accident and subsequently received a CT scan of the head were included. We compared the incidence of maxillofacial injuries in helmeted cyclists and scooter users to non-helmeted users. Descriptive and analytic statistics were computed. Level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Helmet use among scooter users was associated with a significant reduction in maxillofacial fractures (p < 0.001) and soft tissue injuries (p < 0.001). Helmet use among cyclists was not associated with a reduction in maxillofacial fractures (p = 0.17) or soft tissue injuries (p = 0.30). Helmet use was not associated with a reduction in soft tissue injuries of the lower face in both cyclists (p = 0.47) and scooter users (p = 0.24).

Conclusions

Helmet use should be considered among cyclists and scooter users to prevent maxillofacial injuries. Especially unhelmeted scooter users might benefit from helmet use as this is associated with a lower incidence of maxillofacial injuries.

Clinical outcomes in the treatment of unilateral condylar fractures: a cross-sectional study

The treatment of mandibular condyle fractures has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially whether open or closed treatment should be used. There is a need for practical,evidence-based guidelines, and both objective and subjective parameters should be measured. To date, fewstudies have considered clinically relevant subjective parameters. This study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of the treatment of condylar fractures using the Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ) and the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and to compare the outcomes of open and the closed treatment. Patients with condylar fractures and at least 1year of follow-up were examined. These patients completed the MFIQ and other questionnaires, and were examined according to the DC/TMD. Seventy-four of 171 eligible patients participated in this study. The mean MFIQ score was 10.70 (standard error 2.9) in the open group and 4.96 (standard error 1.3) in the closed group (P=0.023), an outcome in favour of the closed treatment group. Examination according to the DC/TMD did not reveal a significant prevalence of TMD complaints. Closed treatment appears to be a safe and appropriate modality for most unilateral condylar fractures. Although the open group in general showed similar outcomes, this treatment should be reserved for limited indications.