Cited by 0Facial Trauma and Fracture ManagementReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesPelvic and Acetabular Injuries

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

Postoperative Outcomes and Complication Risk Factors in Zygomaticomaxillary Complex (ZMC) Fractures: A One-Year Retrospective Study of Surgical Management Approaches

Open access
PS, Priyadharsana, Sugantharaj L, Samuel, K, Prabhusankar, Edsor, Effie, S, Vigneshwar, K, Vignesh·2025·Cureus

Abstract

Background Zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures are among the most frequently encountered midfacial injuries, often resulting from high-energy trauma such as road traffic accidents or assaults. Effective management requires a balance between aesthetic reconstruction and functional rehabilitation. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, postoperative complications remain a concern. This study aims to evaluate demographic patterns, etiological factors, fracture distribution, and surgical approaches, and to identify predictors of postoperative complications using multivariate analysis and survival methods. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted on 77 patients surgically treated for ZMC fractures between 2021 and 2024. Data regarding patient demographics, mechanism of injury, fracture classification, incision type, and postoperative complications were extracted from hospital records. Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression were employed to assess associations between clinical variables and complication risk. Time-to-resolution of complications was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves. Relative risks (RR) were computed for each surgical incision type. Results ZMC fractures predominantly affected males (n=69, 90%), most frequently in the 20-29-year age group (n=22, 28.6%). Road traffic accidents, assaults, and falls were the primary causes. Maxillary fractures were most common (n=25, 32.4%), and the buccal sulcus incision was preferred (n=36, 46.7%). Infraorbital paresthesia was the most frequent complication (n=5, 27%). Significant predictors of complications included age ≥50 years, infraorbital fractures, infraorbital incisions, and alcohol-related trauma (p < 0.05). KM analysis revealed delayed resolution of paresthesia and diplopia; hemianopia persisted at 12 weeks. Overall, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Conclusions ZMC fractures primarily affect young adult males and are most often trauma-induced. While ORIF remains the standard for managing displaced fractures, increased complication risks in older adults and alcohol-related injuries highlight the need for individualized surgical planning and targeted postoperative 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 · 10.7759/cureus.98866

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

References 11

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Scherer M, Sullivan WG, Smith DJ Jr, Phillips LG, Robson MC. An analysis of 1,423 facial fractures in 788 patients at an urban trauma center. J Trauma. 1989, 29:388-90. 10.1097/00005373-198903000-00020 · DOI
  2. Erdmann D, Follmar KE, Debruijn M, et al.. A retrospective analysis of facial fracture etiologies. Ann Plast Surg. 2008, 60:398-403. 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318133a87b · DOI
  3. Klenk G, Kovacs A. Etiology and patterns of facial fractures in the United Arab Emirates. J Craniofac Surg. 2003, 14:78-84. 10.1097/00001665-200301000-00014 · DOI
  4. 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. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2021, 11:229-35. 10.4103/ams.ams_75_20 · DOI
  5. Zingg M, Laedrach K, Chen J, et al.. Classification and treatment of zygomatic fractures: a review of 1,025 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992, 50:778-90. 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90266-3 · DOI
  6. Patil AJ, Tolat T, Yelikar A, Kulkarni J. Incidence and management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures treated at Mahatma Gandhi Mission Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Int J Curr Med App Sci. 2019, 22:11-5.
  7. Shapiro AJ, Johnson RM, Miller SF, McCarthy MC. Facial fractures in a level I trauma center: the importance of protective devices and alcohol abuse. Injury. 2001, 32:353-6. 10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00245-x · DOI
  8. Forouzanfar T, Salentijn E, Peng G, van den Bergh B. A 10-year analysis of the "Amsterdam" protocol in the treatment of zygomatic complex fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013, 41:616-22. 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.12.004 · DOI
  9. Ashwin DP, Rohit, Rajkumar GC. A study on assessing the aetiology and different treatment modalities of zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2017, 4:1423-30.
  10. Lee EI, Mohan K, Koshy JC, Hollier LH Jr. Optimizing the surgical management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Semin Plast Surg. 2010, 24:389-97. 10.1055/s-0030-1269768 · DOI
  11. Bradley D, Leung B, Saxena S, Dungarwalla M, Chapireau D, Fan K. Surgical management of zygomatic complex fractures in a major trauma center. Plast Aesthet Res. 2019, 6:11.
  12. Uda H, Kamochi H, Sugawara Y, Sarukawa S, Sunaga A. The concept and method of closed reduction and internal fixation: a new approach for the treatment of simple zygoma fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013, 132:1231-40. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48d8c · DOI
  13. Pozatek ZW, Kaban LB, Guralnick WC. Fractures of the zygomatic complex: an evaluation of surgical management with special emphasis on the eyebrow approach. J Oral Surg. 1973, 31:141-8.
  14. Baylan JM, Jupiter D, Parker WL, Czerwinski M. Management of zygomatic fractures: a national survey. J Craniofac Surg. 2016, 27:1571-5. 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002880 · DOI
  15. Mehrnoush MR, Amir JA, Hamed Z, Narges H. The incidence of common complications, including ectropion and entropion, in transconjunctival and subciliary approaches for treatment of ZMC fractures. J Dent (Shiraz). 2021, 22:76-81. 10.30476/DENTJODS.2020.84853.1101 · DOI
  16. Crosara JM, Rosa ELS, Silva MRMA. Comparison of cutaneous incisions to approach the infraorbital rim and orbital floor. Braz J Oral Sci. 2009, 8:88-91.

Metadata

Authors
PS, P., Sugantharaj L, S., K, P., Edsor, E., S, V., & K, V.
Venue
Cureus
Published
2025-12-10
Volume
17
Issue
12
Pages
e98866-e98866
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7113896106
Cited by
0
References
11
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Keywords
zygomatic fractures, postoperative complications, open reduction and internal fixation, maxillary fractures, alcohol-related injuries, diplopia, hemianopia, midfacial trauma, risk factors

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: Postoperative Outcomes and Complication Risk Factors in Zygomaticomaxillary Complex (ZMC) Fractures: A One-Year Retrospective Study of Surgical Management Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7759/cureus.98866
The paper
PS, P., Sugantharaj L, S., K, P., Edsor, E., S, V., & K, V. (2025). Postoperative Outcomes and Complication Risk Factors in Zygomaticomaxillary Complex (ZMC) Fractures: A One-Year Retrospective Study of Surgical Management Approaches. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.98866