1989
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1989.01860360061018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Zygomatic Arch as a Guide to Reconstruction of Comminuted Malar Fractures

Abstract: \s=b\Traditional three-point reduction may not restore proper projection of the malar prominence following a fracture dislocation of the zygoma if two of the three anterior points of realignment are comminuted. In such cases, reconstruction of the fourth or posterior projection, the zygomatic arch, increases the accuracy of the multidimensional reconstruction. Although the extended access approach required to repair the arch increases operative time and possibly length of hospitalization, its use is justified … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The advocates of three point fixation base their contention on the fact that a tripod is a minimum requirement for stability [12], also since the zygomatic complex fracture has been described as a quadripod fracture recommendations to rigidly fix the same at the four points i.e. the frontozygomatic region, the infraorbital region, the zygomatic buttress and the zygomatico-sphenoid region has also been advocated [17]. However with 'minimization' being the watchword in current clinical practice [3] two point fixation of the zygomatic complex fractures is becoming the preferred treatment modality which is producing satisfactory results in most cases baring those fractures which are grossly comminuted and displaced and are deemed unstable with two points of fixation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advocates of three point fixation base their contention on the fact that a tripod is a minimum requirement for stability [12], also since the zygomatic complex fracture has been described as a quadripod fracture recommendations to rigidly fix the same at the four points i.e. the frontozygomatic region, the infraorbital region, the zygomatic buttress and the zygomatico-sphenoid region has also been advocated [17]. However with 'minimization' being the watchword in current clinical practice [3] two point fixation of the zygomatic complex fractures is becoming the preferred treatment modality which is producing satisfactory results in most cases baring those fractures which are grossly comminuted and displaced and are deemed unstable with two points of fixation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,2 Therefore, for both cosmetic and functional reasons, it is imperative that zygomatic arch injuries be properly and fully diagnosed, and adequately treated. 2 Plain films and CT have their place in determining the type, location, magnitude and direction of displacement of zygomatic arch fractures. The submentovertex (SMV) view, which is traditionally used as the first step in the diagnosis of zygomatic arch fractures, has its own limitations ( Figure 1a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By restoring correct midfacial width at the level of the arch, we assure proper midfacial projection and transverse width. Thus the zygomatic arch is the key to establishing midfacial width at the subcranial level (11). Allowing the arch to bow outward during reduction, rather than passing directly posteriorly from the body of the zygoma to the zygomatic process of the temporal bone, creates increased facial width and decreased facial projection.…”
Section: Can J Plast Surg Vol 3 No 2 Summer 1995mentioning
confidence: 99%