The Rationale of Coronal Approach to Malar/Zygoma Reduction.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
24
07
2023
accepted:
16
08
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Malar/zygoma reduction is an effective procedure to change a broader, flatter facial appearance to an oval facial shape. Of the intraoral and coronal approaches, the intraoral is the more commonly used technique than the coronal, due to the perception that complications with the coronal approach are significant, and intraoral results are satisfactory. We compared the postoperative effects of both approaches. From 1994 to 1999, we included the 150 intraoral cases that were followed up for 3 years postoperatively. From 2000 to 2018, we changed our technique to the coronal approach and included the 575 cases that were followed up for 3 years postoperatively. We compared the results of our prior intraoral approach with the more recent coronal approach. All cases of the intraoral approach resulted in smaller-sized faces horizontally; however, 90 patients (60%) still had resulting flat-shaped faces due to acute angle formation in the resultant zygoma. There were 141 cases (94%) of partial malunion and 138 cases (92%) of midface ptosis. Among the 575 coronal approaches, 518 cases (90%) resulted in an oval facial shape without acute angled zygoma. There were 161 cases (28%) of visible incision scars, 466 cases (81%) of temporary alopecia, 12 cases (2%) of hematoma, and 29 cases (5%) of temporary frontal facial nerve injury. The intraoral approach led to flat and acute zygomas. The majority of patients experienced midface soft tissue ptosis. In contrast, the coronal approach led to an oval facial shape. The most notable complications of the coronal approach were visible scars and temporary alopecia.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Malar/zygoma reduction is an effective procedure to change a broader, flatter facial appearance to an oval facial shape. Of the intraoral and coronal approaches, the intraoral is the more commonly used technique than the coronal, due to the perception that complications with the coronal approach are significant, and intraoral results are satisfactory. We compared the postoperative effects of both approaches.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
From 1994 to 1999, we included the 150 intraoral cases that were followed up for 3 years postoperatively. From 2000 to 2018, we changed our technique to the coronal approach and included the 575 cases that were followed up for 3 years postoperatively. We compared the results of our prior intraoral approach with the more recent coronal approach.
Results
UNASSIGNED
All cases of the intraoral approach resulted in smaller-sized faces horizontally; however, 90 patients (60%) still had resulting flat-shaped faces due to acute angle formation in the resultant zygoma. There were 141 cases (94%) of partial malunion and 138 cases (92%) of midface ptosis. Among the 575 coronal approaches, 518 cases (90%) resulted in an oval facial shape without acute angled zygoma. There were 161 cases (28%) of visible incision scars, 466 cases (81%) of temporary alopecia, 12 cases (2%) of hematoma, and 29 cases (5%) of temporary frontal facial nerve injury.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The intraoral approach led to flat and acute zygomas. The majority of patients experienced midface soft tissue ptosis. In contrast, the coronal approach led to an oval facial shape. The most notable complications of the coronal approach were visible scars and temporary alopecia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37900987
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005304
pmc: PMC10602498
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e5304Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 May;117(6):1972-9
pubmed: 16651972
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Oct;124(4):1245-1253
pubmed: 19935309
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1983;7(2):121-5
pubmed: 6613739
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1992 Fall;16(4):355-63
pubmed: 1414662
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991 Jul;88(1):53-61
pubmed: 2052661
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Jan;111(1):453-60
pubmed: 12496618
J Craniofac Surg. 2009 May;20(3):849-52
pubmed: 19480043
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011 Apr;35(2):242-4
pubmed: 20927514
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Dec;106(7):1514-9
pubmed: 11129179
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov;128(5):1127-1138
pubmed: 21738088
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;70(1):e87-91
pubmed: 21855195
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006 May-Jun;30(3):333-41
pubmed: 16733778
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 May;65(5):e111-20
pubmed: 22280942