Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Intraoperative CT evaluation of repositioning accuracy in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: 1-point versus multiple-point fixation

Sakkas, Andreas, Schulze, Johannes, Scheurer, Mario, Rana, Majeed, Kasper, Robin, Ebeling, Marcel, Schramm, Alexander, Wilde, Frank, Knitz, Marc·2025·Head & Face Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s13005-025-00558-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The increasing interest in minimally invasive procedures, which carries minimal risk for wound complications and scarring while also providing predictable outcomes, has brought attention to the concept of 1-point fixation in treating zygomaticomaxillary (ZMC) fractures. The primary aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative accuracy of repositioning following osteosynthesis with 1-point fixation versus multiple-point fixation in unilateral fractures of the ZMC complex. The secondary aim was to evaluate associations between trauma- and procedure-specific factors and the surgical outcomes of both fixation methods. Methods: In this retrospective cohort single-centre study, patients who underwent surgical treatment for unilateral ZMC fractures using either 1-point or multiple-point fixation over a 7-year period were included. Forty-two patients were treated with 1-point fixation through an intraoral Keen’s approach (group 1), while 20 patients were treated with multiple-point fixation through intraoral and extraoral approach (group 2). Demographic, clinical, radiological, and treatment data were analyzed. The degree of repositioning including protrusion difference of the zygoma (height, width, diagonal), malar difference using an asymmetry index, and difference in the intraorbital volume were measured comparing preoperative and intraoperative CT imaging. Multivariable analyses were conducted to compare the surgical outcomes in both groups and identify associations between the trauma- and procedure-specific variables and the intraoperative accuracy of fracture repositioning. Results: A total of 62 patients with 62 unilateral ZMC fractures were included in the analysis. Violence was the most common mechanism of injury ( n = 16; 25.8%). Forty-two patients underwent treatment with 1-point fixation, while 20 patients received multiple-point fixation. The intraoperative malar width difference and malar diagonal difference were significantly higher in group 1 ( p = 0.003 / p = 0.036). No difference was detected in the intraorbital volume between the two fixation groups intraoperatively. Univariate analysis revealed that an interval between trauma-surgery of 3–7 days was significantly associated a better repositioning result in terms of intraorbital volume difference after multiple-point fixation ( p = 0.03). Conclusions: This study shows that multiple-point fixation achieves superior accuracy in restoring zygomatic geometry, especially malar projection and transverse symmetry, while both techniques adequately restore intraorbital volume. Single-point fixation remains a viable, less invasive option for non-comminuted ZMC fractures when guided by intraoperative 3D imaging. The lack of revision surgeries in either group supports a tailored, fracture-specific strategy that balances precision with minimal invasiveness, consistent with trends toward individualized, resource-efficient trauma care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13005-025-00558-x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 1

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Raghoebar II, Rozema FR, de Lange J, Dubois L. Surgical treatment of fractures of the zygomaticomaxillary complex: effect of fixation on repositioning and stability. A systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;60(4):397–411. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Neto RMS, Zotarelli-Filho IJ, Ribeiro da Silva CEXS. Meta-analysis of the major clinical results of the treatment with 1-Point fixation in fractures in the Zygomatic-Maxillary complex: success rate and complications. J Maxillofac Oral Surg März. 2023;22(1):1–8. · DOI
  3. Dubron K, Van Camp P, Jacobs R, Politis C, Shaheen E. Accuracy of virtual planning and intraoperative navigation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123(6):e841-8. · DOI
  4. Refahee SM, Khalifa ME, Askar MG, Breshah MN. Role of finite element analysis for selection of single point fixation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture. BMC Oral Health 4 Januar. 2024;24(1):15. · DOI
  5. Lee KS, Do GC, Shin JB, Kim MH, Kim JS, Kim NG. One-point versus two-point fixation in the management of zygoma complex fractures. Arch Craniofac Surg 20 August. 2022;23(4):171–7. · DOI
  6. Kim JH, Lee JH, Hong SM, Park CH. The effectiveness of 1-point fixation for zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(9):828–32. · DOI
  7. Elkahwagi M, Eldegwi A. Minimally invasive single-point stabilization of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022;21(4):1355–62. · DOI
  8. Sakkas A, Weiß C, Pietzka S, Wilde F, Thiele OC, Mischkowski RA. Evaluation of different patterns of zygomaticoorbital complex fractures. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma Reconstruction Juni. 2024;17(2):92–103. · DOI
  9. Alzahrani AAH, Alzahrani MS, Kukreja P, Bhat N. Evaluation of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures with gillies approach in Al-Baha region of Saudi arabia: A cohort study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci Februar. 2024;16(Suppl 1):S726–9. · DOI
  10. de Kort WWB, van Hout WMMT, Ten Harkel TC, van Cann EM, Rosenberg AJWP. A novel method for quantitative Three-Dimensional analysis of Zygomatico-Maxillary complex symmetry. J Craniofac Surg 1 August. 2022;33(5):1474–8. · DOI
  11. Johner JP, Wiedemeier D, Hingsammer L, Gander T, Blumer M, Wagner MEH. Improved results in closed reduction of zygomatic arch fractures by the use of intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(3):414–22. · DOI
  12. Kim SY, Nam SM, Park ES, Kim YB. Evaluation of one-point fixation for zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using a three-dimensional photogrammetric analysis. J Otolaryngol. 2019;48(1):36.
  13. Gong J, Zhang W, Zhao R, Zhang W, Wang B, Ma D. The role of intraoperative navigation in surgical treatment of unilateral zygomatic complex fractures: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Juli. 2023;81(7):892–903. · DOI
  14. Cheng M, Zhu Y, Liu Q, Shen S, Qian Y, Yu H. Efficacy of surgical navigation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(9):1180–7. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Zhou T, Li J, Chen S, Ren J, Geng N. Application of Computer-Aided design and individualized templates for bilateral zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Craniofac Surg 1 Juni. 2022;33(4):1230–5. · DOI
  16. Tel A, Sembronio S, Costa F, Robiony M. Scoping zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures with the eyes of virtual reality: operative protocol and proposal of a modernized classification. J Craniofac Surg 1 April. 2021;32(2):552–8. · DOI
  17. Committeri U, Arena A, Carraturo E, Austoni M, Germano C, Salzano G. u. a. Incidence of orbital side effects in zygomaticomaxillary complex and isolated orbital walls fractures: A retrospective study in South Italy and a brief review of the literature. JCM 20 Januar. 2023;12(3):845.
  18. Arjmand H, Billig A, Clement A, Hopfgartner A, Whyne CM, Fialkov JA. Is three-point fixation needed to mechanically stabilize zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;84:47–53. · DOI
  19. Yang S, Cho JY, Shim WC, Kim S. Retrospective study about the postoperative stability of zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 1 Oktober. 2021;43(1):36. · DOI
  20. Nainoor N, Shobha ES, Prashanth NT, Rangan V, Malick R, Shetty S. Efficacy of two-point versus three-point fixation for zygomaticomaxillary fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2024;23(5):1166–74. · DOI
  21. Shokri T, Sokoya M, Cohn JE, Bahrami A, Inman J, Ducic Y. Single-Point fixation for noncomminuted zygomaticomaxillary complex Fractures-A 20-Year experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Mai. 2020;78(5):778–81. · DOI
  22. Gawande MJ, Lambade PN, Bande C, Gupta MK, Mahajan M, Dehankar T. Two-Point versus Three-Point fixation in the management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: A comparative study. Annals Maxillofacial Surg Juli. 2021;11(2):229–35. · DOI
  23. Choudhury R, Rastogi S, Kumar D, Indra SP, Joshi A, Jawalkar S. Does initial reduction at infra-orbital rim first improve Malar height and vertical dystopia in ZMC fractures? Oral maxillofac Surg. Juni. 2021;25(2):215–22.
  24. Degala S, Radhakrishna S, Dharmarajan S. Zygomaticomaxillary fracture fixation: a prospective comparative evaluation of two-point versus three-point fixation. Oral Maxillofac Surg März. 2021;25(1):41–8. · DOI
  25. Singh Payak A, Bhadouria P, Singh A, Nair G, Randhawa RK, Thakur S. u. a. Management of Zygomatico maxillary complex fractures. Bioinformation. 2023;19(1):120–5. · DOI
  26. Balakrishnan K, Ebenezer V, Dakir A, Kumar S, Prakash D. Management of tripod fractures (zygomaticomaxillary complex) 1 point and 2 point fixations: a 5-year review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(5):242. · DOI
  27. Dal Santo F, Ellis E, Throckmorton GS. The effects of zygomatic complex fracture on masseteric muscle force. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;50(8):791–9. · DOI
  28. Ras F, Habets LL, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Method for quantifying facial asymmetry in three dimensions using stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(3):233–9.
  29. Khaqani MS, Tavosi F, Gholami M, Eftekharian HR, Khojastepour L. Analysis of facial symmetry after zygomatic bone fracture management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg März. 2018;76(3):595–604. · DOI
  30. Kim JH, Kim YS, Oh DY, Jun YJ, Rhie JW, Moon SH. Efficacy of altered Two-Point fixation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture. BioMed Res Int 18 März. 2020;2020:1–7.
  31. Zingg M, Laedrach K, Chen J, Chowdhury K, Vuillemin T, Sutter F. u. a. Classification and treatment of zygomatic fractures: a review of 1,025 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg August. 1992;50(8):778–90. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Eski M, Sahin I, Deveci M, Turegun M, Isik S, Sengezer M. A retrospective analysis of 101 zygomatico-orbital fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(6):1059–64. · DOI
  33. Blumer M, Kumalic S, Gander T, Lanzer M, Rostetter C, Rücker M. u. a. Retrospective analysis of 471 surgically treated zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg Februar. 2018;46(2):269–73. · DOI
  34. Hwang K. One-point fixation of tripod fractures of zygoma through a lateral brow incision. J Craniofac Surg Juli. 2010;21(4):1042–4. · DOI
  35. Dakir A, Muthumani T, Prabu N, Mohan R, Maity A. One point fixation of zygomatic tripod fractures in the zygomatic buttress through Keen′s intraoral approach: a review of 30 cases. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(5):238. · DOI
  36. Rahbin S, Sunnergren O, McBride E, Darabi H, Alinasab B. Does more invasive surgery result in higher patient satisfaction? A Long-Term Follow-Up of 136 zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875241286544. · DOI
  37. Fujioka M, Yamanoto T, Miyazato O, Nishimura G. Stability of one-plate fixation for zygomatic bone fracture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(2):817–8. · DOI
  38. Wi JM, Sung KH, Chi M. „Orbital volume restoration rate after orbital fracture; a CT-based orbital volume measurement for evaluation of orbital wall reconstructive effect. Eye (Lond) Mai. 2017;31(5):713–9. · DOI
  39. Hsu CR, Lee LC, Chen YH, Chien KH. Early intervention in orbital floor fractures: postoperative ocular motility and diplopia outcomes. J Pers Med 22 April. 2022;12(5):671. · DOI
  40. Okinaka Y, Hara J, Takahashi M. Orbital blowout fracture with persistent mobility deficit due to fibrosis of the inferior rectus muscle and perimuscular tissue. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Dezember. 1999;108(12):1174–6. · DOI
  41. Jazayeri HE, Khavanin N, Yu JW, Lopez J, Ganjawalla KP, Shamliyan T. u. a. Does early repair of orbital fractures result in superior patient outcomes? A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg April. 2020;78(4):568–77. · DOI
  42. Wilde F, Lorenz K, Ebner AK, Krauss O, Mascha F, Schramm A. Intraoperative imaging with a 3D C-arm system after zygomatico-orbital complex fracture reduction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Mai. 2013;71(5):894–910. · DOI
  43. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ. u. a. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg Dezember. 2014;12(12):1500–24. · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Sakkas, A., Schulze, J., Scheurer, M., Rana, M., Kasper, R., Ebeling, M., Schramm, A., Wilde, F., & Knitz, M.
Venue
Head & Face Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-12-13
Volume
21
Issue
1
ISSN
1746-160X
DOI
10.1186/s13005-025-00558-x
Cited by
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Universitätsklinikum Ulm

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intraoperative CT evaluation of repositioning accuracy in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: 1-point versus multiple-point fixation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13005-025-00558-x
The paper
Sakkas, A., Schulze, J., Scheurer, M., Rana, M., Kasper, R., Ebeling, M., Schramm, A., Wilde, F., & Knitz, M. (2025). Intraoperative CT evaluation of repositioning accuracy in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: 1-point versus multiple-point fixation. Head & Face Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-025-00558-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.