DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21702023.v3
title: QoL Life Data.xlsx

description: <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.