Zygomaticomaxillary fracture fixation: a prospective comparative evaluation of two-point versus three-point fixation.

PURPOSE: Zygomatic bone has a higher risk of sustaining injuries in the maxillofacial skeleton. On fracturing, zygomatic bone separates from the four neighbouring bones at its articulations. Treatment for zygomaticomaxillary fractures has evolved a long way since 3000 BC. With the advent of miniplates for midface fracture, controversies still exist regarding the stability of zygoma following 1, 2, and 3 points for fixation. The study aims to compare and determine the most effective technique for the reduction of zygomaticomaxillary fractures and the ability to retain the fractured zygoma in a stable position. Hence, a study was conducted in our institute to compare 2 and 3-point fixation of zygomaticomaxillary fractures taking into account the clinical and radiographic parameters. METHODS: Twenty-four patients were divided into 2 equal groups A and B, receiving 2- and 3-point fixation respectively. Fracture displacement and stability were assessed using coronal and axial CT scan tracings at preoperatively, immediate, and 5-week postoperatively. RESULTS: Group B showed a significant reduction in postoperative mean displacement at sphenozygomatic and infraorbital region when compared with group A. Patients in group A had an increase incidence in vertical dystopia and enophthalmos. There was no postoperative displacement at any site in both the groups. CONCLUSION: The fractured segment was held in place by both the fixation methods but 3-point fixation gave better stability in maintaining the fractured segment in desired reduced position.