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.