Surgical treatment of zygomatic bone fracture using two points fixation versus three point fixation--a randomised prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

The zygoma plays an important role in the facial contour for both cosmetic and functional reasons; therefore zygomatic bone injuries should be properly diagnosed and adequately treated. Comparison of various surgical approaches and their complications can only be done objectively using outcome measurements which in turn require protocol management and long-term follow up. The preference for open reduction and internal fixation of zygomatic fractures at three points has continued to grow in response to observations of inadequate results from two point and one point fixation techniques.The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of zygomatic bone after treatment with ORIF using 2 point fixation and ORIF using 3 point fixation and compare the outcome of two procedures.

METHODS

100 patients were randomly divided equally into two groups. In group A, 50 patients were treated by ORIF using two point fixation by miniplates and in group B, 50 patients were treated by ORIF using three point fixation by miniplates. They were evaluated for their complications during and after surgery with their advantages and disadvantages and the difference between the two groups was observed.

RESULTS

A total of 100 fractures were sustained. We found that postoperative complication like decreased malar height and vertical dystopia was more common in those patients who were treated by two point fixation than those who were treated with three point fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study open reduction and internal fixation using three point fixation by miniplates is the best available method for the treatment zygomatic bone fractures.