Introduction: The occurrence of facial fractures has increased especially in young population .The surgical management of infraorbital zygomatic fractures is very complex because of their functional and aesthetic implications. Their management not only demands the restoration of function but also the cosmetic appearance.

Aims:  To see the demographic profile of infra orbital zygomatic fractures and to compare subciliary and subtarsal incisions in the management of them on the basis of time taken, exposure achieved and the aesthetic outcome.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted in the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery SKIMS, Srinagar. The study included a total of 50 patients. The patients were divided into two groups randomly. In 25 patients subciliary approach was used and in 25 subtarsal.

Results:  Majority (60%) of patients were in the age group of 16-30 years, 78% of patients were males and 22% patients were females. Time taken was higher in subciliary group (16-20 minutes in 64% patients). Exposure achieved was better in subtarsal incision group( Excellent in 80%). The incidence of transient ectropion was higher in subciliary group (8%) while the incidence of lower lid edema (4%) and noticeable scar(4%) was more in subtarsal group.

Conclusion: We found the subciliary incision having better cosmetic results. However more prospective studies with large number of cases are needed to make definitve conclusions.

Keywords:  infraorbital, zygomatic  fractures, subciliary, sub tarsal, aesthetic.

1. Menon S, Sinha R, Thapliyal G, and Bandyopadhyay T: Management of Zygomatic Complex Fractures in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Study; J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011 June; 10(2): 138–141.
2. Knight JS, North JF: The classification of malar fractures: an analysis of displacement as a guide to treatment, Br J Plast Surgery 1961;13:315.4
3. Wray RC, Holtmann BN, Ribaudo JM, Keiter A, Weeks PM: A comparison of conjunctival and subciliary incisions for orbital fractures. Br J Plast Surg; 1977; 30:142.
4. Werther JR: Cutaneous approaches to the lower lid and orbit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 56:60-65.
5. Crosara JM , Rosa ES , Silva MR :Comparison of cutaneus incisions to     approach the infraorbital rim. Braz J Oral Sci 2009 8/(2):88-91
6. Giraddi GB, Syed MK; Preseptal transconjunctival vs. subciliary approach in treatment of infraorbital rim and floor fractures: Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery 2012; 2(2): 136-140.
7. Tung TC, Tseng WS, Chen CT, Lai JP, Chen YR: Acute life threatening injuries in facial fracture patients: a review of 1025 patients. J trauma 2000 49: 420-24
8. Lim LH, Lam LK, Moore MH, Trott JA, David DJ: Associated injuries in facial fractures: review of 839 patients. Br J Plast Surg 1993; 46: 635-38.
9. Subrahmanian B, Krishnamurthy S, Kumar S, Saravanan B, Padhmanabhan M: comparison of various approaches for exposure of infraorbital rim fractures of zygoma. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 8(2):99–102.
10. Heckler FR, Songcharoen S, Sultani FA. Subciliary incision and skin-muscle eyelid flap for orbital fractures. Ann Plast Surg. 1983;10:309–313
11. Bahr W, Bagambisa FB, Schlegel G, and Schilli W: Comparison of transcutaneous incisions used for exposure of infraorbital rim and orbital floor: a retrospective study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1992; 90: 585.
12. Rohrich RJ, Hollier I, Watumul D :Optimizing the management of orbitozygomatic Clin. Plast. Surg 1992; 19: 149.

Mudasir Habib M.S