Fixation Points in the Treatment of Traumatic Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE

Controversy remains regarding the optimal degree of anatomic exposure, reduction, and fixation required during open reduction and internal fixation of zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures. We critically examined the reported data to compare the patient outcomes after various degrees of ZMC reduction and internal fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between different degrees of fixation of ZMC fractures. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registries were queried. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.

RESULTS

Of 1213 screened studies, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Fracture instability at 3 months was greater with 2-point fixation (61.1%) than with 3-point fixation (10.6%; relative risk, 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 3.3). Less vertical orbital dystopia was seen with 3-point fixation than with 2-point fixation (mean difference, 0.9 mm; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3 mm). The incidence of infection and malar asymmetry did not differ between the groups. The quality of evidence was very low to low.

CONCLUSIONS

The reported data were limited by low quality, retrospective studies. However, the meta-analysis of randomized control trial data suggested a superiority of 3 points of exposure and fixation regarding fracture stability. When 2 points appear to provide stable fixation, the potential benefits of a third point should be weighed against the cost, operative time, and exposure/periosteal stripping on a case-by-case basis.