Literature DB >> 21772174

Analysis of zygomatic fractures.

Kun Hwang1, Dong Hyun Kim.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the natural history of zygomatic fractures in 469 cases over 14 years. The medical records of patients seeking treatment for zygomatic fractures were reviewed. The zygomatic fractures were classified as monopod, dipod, or tripod fractures for most patients. The monopod fractures included (1) zygomaticofrontal, (2) zygomaticomaxillary, and (3) zygomatic arch fractures. The dipod fractures were subclassified into 3 types according to combination of the previously mentioned 3 sites, which were 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3. Tripod fracture included all 1, 2, and 3. Among 469 cases of zygomatic fractures, tripod fractures (n = 238, 50.7%), zygomaticomaxillary fracture (n = 121, 25.8%), and isolated fracture of the zygomatic arch (n = 98 20.9%) formed most of the cases (n = 457, 97.4%). About one-half cases were tripod fractures (n = 238, 50.7%), and another half cases were monopod fractures (n = 220, 46.9%). Only 11 cases (2.4%) were dipod fractures. Most of the monopod fractures were zygomaticomaxillary (n = 121, 25.8%) and zygomatic arch fractures (n = 98, 20.9%). Among the dipod fractures, no cases of zygomaticofrontal and zygomatic arch fractures were reported. An open reduction was performed in 73.8% (346 cases), closed reduction in 24.5% (115 cases), and conservative treatment in only 1.7%. In tripod fracture (n = 238), an open reduction and internal fixation was performed for most of the cases (n = 225, 94.5%), and closed reduction was performed in only 11 cases (4.6%). In monopod zygomaticomaxillary fracture (n = 121), internal fixation was performed for most of the cases (n = 108, 89.3%), and closed reduction was performed in only 9 cases (7.7%). However, in monopod fracture of the zygomatic arch (n = 98), most of the cases (n = 95, 96.9%) were treated with closed reduction; open reduction was performed in only 1 case (1.0%). At zygomaticofrontal area (n = 241), internal fixation was performed in most of the cases (n = 198, 82.2%). At the infraorbital rim (n = 364), internal fixation was carried out in most cases (n = 257, 70.6%). At the zygomaticomaxillary buttress (n = 279), internal fixation was performed in about one third of the cases (n = 91, 32.6%). At the zygomatic arch (n = 339), only 1 case (0.3%) was fixed internally. The postoperative complication rate occurred in 88 cases (19.1%) among 461 cases operated. The most common complication was hypesthesia (50 cases, 56.8%), followed by diplopia (15 cases, 17.0%), limitation of mouth opening or closure (11 cases, 12.5%), infection (6.8%), and hematoma (4.5%). Most patients with hypesthesia improved at 2 months. About 90% of the patients with diplopia improved within 2 months. Limitation of mouth opening was improved immediately after operation in most of the cases. Our findings demonstrate significant differences in the demographics and clinical presentation that will enable a more accurate diagnosis and prediction of concomitant injuries and sequelae.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21772174     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821cc28d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  9 in total

1.  Transconjunctival versus subciliary approach for orbital fracture repair--an anthropometric evaluation of 221 cases.

Authors:  Gregor F Raschke; Ulrich M Rieger; Rolf-Dieter Bader; Oliver Schaefer; Arndt Guentsch; Stefan Schultze-Mosgau
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Results of a Clinical Scoring System Regarding Symptoms and Surgical Treatment of Isolated Unilateral Zygomatico-Orbital Fractures: A Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis of 461 Cases.

Authors:  Lucas M Ritschl; Matthias Wittmann; Achim von Bomhard; Steffen Koerdt; Tobias Unterhuber; Victoria Kehl; Herbert Deppe; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Thomas Mücke; Andreas M Fichter
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 3.  Trauma of the midface.

Authors:  Thomas S Kühnel; Torsten E Reichert
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-12-22

4.  Novel Surgical Technique for Repair of Zygomatic Fractures: Lever Technique.

Authors:  Hakan Cinal; Ensar Zafer Barin; Mehmet Akif Çakmak; Murat Kara; Kerem Yilmaz; Onder Tan
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 0.947

5.  Surgical Methods of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fracture.

Authors:  So Young Ji; Seung Soo Kim; Moo Hyun Kim; Wan Suk Yang
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2016-12-23

6.  Titanium Nickelide in Midface Fractures Treatment.

Authors:  Liudmila Shamanaeva; Ekaterina Diachkova; Pavel Petruk; Kirill Polyakov; Igor Cherkesov; Sergei Ivanov
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2020-07-27

7.  Role of Navigation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Surgeon's Perspectives.

Authors:  Manish Anand; Shreya Panwar
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2021-04-15

8.  Treatment of Zygomatic Complex Fractures with Surgical or Nonsurgical Intervention: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Thomas Starch-Jensen; Linda Busk Linnebjerg; Janek Dalsgaard Jensen
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2018-05-21

Review 9.  Zygomaticomaxillary buttress and its dilemma.

Authors:  Pallavi Malaviya; Sandeep Choudhary
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-08-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.