Cannabis-Positive Facial Trauma Patients Have Similar Outcomes to Non-Users Despite More Severe Injuries
A review of 328 facial trauma patients found cannabis-positive patients had higher injury severity scores but similar surgical complication rates and hospital stays compared to non-users.
Quick Facts
What This Study Found
Cannabis-positive patients (27.4%) had significantly higher Injury Severity Scores than cannabis-negative patients. Despite more severe injuries, cannabis-positive patients had comparable surgical complication rates, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates. Cannabis was the most common drug detected after alcohol.
Key Numbers
328 patients; 27.4% cannabis-positive; higher ISS in cannabis group; similar complication rates, LOS, and readmission between groups.
How They Did This
Retrospective chart review of 328 facial trauma patients at a Level I trauma center. Toxicology screening for cannabis, alcohol, and other substances. Outcomes: surgical complications, length of stay, ICU admission, readmission.
Why This Research Matters
Surgeons may wonder whether cannabis use affects surgical outcomes in trauma patients. This study suggests that despite arriving with more severe injuries (possibly due to risk-taking behavior), cannabis-positive patients do not have worse perioperative outcomes.
The Bigger Picture
As cannabis use increases, understanding its impact on surgical outcomes is essential for trauma care. This finding that cannabis-positive patients fare similarly despite worse injuries may reflect either cannabis's limited surgical impact or confounding by age and fitness.
What This Study Doesn't Tell Us
Retrospective single-center study. Toxicology only shows recent use, not acute intoxication level. Higher ISS in cannabis group introduces confounding. Small sample may miss rare complications.
Questions This Raises
- ?Does acute THC intoxication at the time of trauma affect anesthesia management?
- ?Why do cannabis users present with more severe facial trauma?
Trust & Context
- Key Stat:
- Evidence Grade:
- Retrospective single-center study with reasonable sample size, but confounders and lack of dose information limit conclusions.
- Study Age:
- 2025 retrospective analysis at a Level I trauma center.
- Original Title:
- Cannabis-related facial trauma: a 10-year review of facial trauma in Victoria, Australia.
- Published In:
- Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 140(6), 648-655 (2025)
- Authors:
- Tran, Vincent, Qiu, Michael(2), Tadakamadla, Santosh Kumar, Lee, Kai
- Database ID:
- RTHC-07817
Evidence Hierarchy
Frequently Asked Questions
Does cannabis use affect surgery outcomes after trauma?
In this study of 328 facial trauma patients, cannabis users had similar complication rates and recovery times as non-users, despite presenting with more severe injuries.
Do cannabis users get worse injuries?
Cannabis-positive patients had significantly higher injury severity scores in this facial trauma study, possibly reflecting risk-taking behavior, though causation cannot be established.
Read More on RethinkTHC
Cite This Study
https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-07817APA
Tran, Vincent; Qiu, Michael; Tadakamadla, Santosh Kumar; Lee, Kai. (2025). Cannabis-related facial trauma: a 10-year review of facial trauma in Victoria, Australia.. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 140(6), 648-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2025.06.007
MLA
Tran, Vincent, et al. "Cannabis-related facial trauma: a 10-year review of facial trauma in Victoria, Australia.." Oral surgery, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2025.06.007
RethinkTHC
RethinkTHC Research Database. "Cannabis-related facial trauma: a 10-year review of facial t..." RTHC-07817. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/tran-2025-cannabisrelated-facial-trauma-a
Access the Original Study
Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.