Two-Point versus Three-Point Fixation in the Management of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION

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 that require a protocol for management and long-term follow-up. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of zygomatic bone after treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) using two-point fixation and ORIF using three-point fixation and compare the outcome of two procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients were randomly divided equally into two groups. In Group A, ten patients were treated by ORIF using two-point fixation by miniplates and in Group B, ten patients were treated by ORIF using three-point fixation by miniplates. They were evaluated with their advantages and disadvantages and the difference between the two groups was observed.

RESULTS

We found that postoperative facial and neurological complications are minimum in two-point fixation group. Based on this study, open reduction and internal fixation using two-point fixation by miniplates is sufficient and the best available treatment of choice for the management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures.

DISCUSSION

Alignment of the fracture at three points and fixation at two stable points provide the most accurate and satisfactory postoperative results. Two-point interosseous fixation at the "buttress" fracture and the frontozygomatic (FZ) fracture is suitable for routine surgery. The results of these studies confirm with the present study that two-point fixation provided better stability in patients with clinical and radiological evidence of fracture in FZ and zygomaticomaxillary buttress area.