The Rationale of Coronal Approach to Malar/Zygoma Reduction

Abstract

Background: 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: 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: 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: 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.