Role of Intraoperative Imaging in Improving Closed Reduction of Zygomatic Arch Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PurposeThe use of intraoperative imaging (IOI) to improve the reduction adequacy of zygomatic arch (ZMA) fractures has been reported, but few systematic reviews have examined this topic. The aim of this review was to investigate and compare the value of IOI with conventional methods without IOI (N-IOI) for the closed reduction of ZMA fractures.MethodsElectronic retrieval of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and citation search until December 2, 2022, was used to identify controlled clinical trials that employed IOI for improving adequacy in closed reduction of ZMA fractures. The predictor variable was the use of IOI–yes/no (IOI vs N-IOI). The covariates included imaging technique (ultrasound, C-arm, and cone beam computed tomography) and ZMA fracture type (M-shape fracture, mechanistic force in 1 direction; variable fracture, mechanistic force in 2 directions). The primary outcome variables were the reduction adequacy of ZMA fractures (the remaining cortical step and dislocation angle) compared with the ideal mirrored position. Weighted or mean differences, risk ratios, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated, where P >.05 and I2＜50% fixed effect model was adopted, and a vice versa random effect model was adopted.ResultsA total of 1250 studies were identified, of which 6 studies with 259 participants were included. The meta-analysis results indicated that compared with N-IOI, IOI yielded fewer cortical steps (−1.76 [-2.42, 1.10], P ＜.00001, fixed model) and dislocation angles (−5.60 [-8.08, 3.12], P＜.00001, fixed model) in patients with variable ZMA fractures, while no significant difference was detected in the M-shape ZMA fracture (−0.72, [-2.93, 1.48], P = .52; −1.48, [-3.51, 0.55], P = .15). Although there was no significant difference in postoperative correction (0.35, [0.06, 2.01] P = .24, fixed model), all secondary revision cases occurred in the N-IOI group. Descriptive analysis showed that IOI yielded better symmetry and appearance satisfaction.ConclusionIOI improved the adequacy of the procedure and led to a better postoperative appearance, especially for patients with variable ZMA fractures. Furthermore, the use of IOI avoided the risk of secondary surgery. In future studies, researchers should standardize the scale and outcomes to facilitate the intuitive evaluation of reduction adequacy. The use of intraoperative imaging (IOI) to improve the reduction adequacy of zygomatic arch (ZMA) fractures has been reported, but few systematic reviews have examined this topic. The aim of this review was to investigate and compare the value of IOI with conventional methods without IOI (N-IOI) for the closed reduction of ZMA fractures. Electronic retrieval of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and citation search until December 2, 2022, was used to identify controlled clinical trials that employed IOI for improving adequacy in closed reduction of ZMA fractures. The predictor variable was the use of IOI–yes/no (IOI vs N-IOI). The covariates included imaging technique (ultrasound, C-arm, and cone beam computed tomography) and ZMA fracture type (M-shape fracture, mechanistic force in 1 direction; variable fracture, mechanistic force in 2 directions). The primary outcome variables were the reduction adequacy of ZMA fractures (the remaining cortical step and dislocation angle) compared with the ideal mirrored position. Weighted or mean differences, risk ratios, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated, where P >.05 and I2＜50% fixed effect model was adopted, and a vice versa random effect model was adopted. A total of 1250 studies were identified, of which 6 studies with 259 participants were included. The meta-analysis results indicated that compared with N-IOI, IOI yielded fewer cortical steps (−1.76 [-2.42, 1.10], P ＜.00001, fixed model) and dislocation angles (−5.60 [-8.08, 3.12], P＜.00001, fixed model) in patients with variable ZMA fractures, while no significant difference was detected in the M-shape ZMA fracture (−0.72, [-2.93, 1.48], P = .52; −1.48, [-3.51, 0.55], P = .15). Although there was no significant difference in postoperative correction (0.35, [0.06, 2.01] P = .24, fixed model), all secondary revision cases occurred in the N-IOI group. Descriptive analysis showed that IOI yielded better symmetry and appearance satisfaction. IOI improved the adequacy of the procedure and led to a better postoperative appearance, especially for patients with variable ZMA fractures. Furthermore, the use of IOI avoided the risk of secondary surgery. In future studies, researchers should standardize the scale and outcomes to facilitate the intuitive evaluation of reduction adequacy.