Gillies Elevation and Percutaneous Kirschner Wire Fixation in the Treatment of Simple Zygoma Fractures: Long-Term Quantitative Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of zygoma fracture repair is to restore preinjury function and appearance. The optimal surgical technique represents a balance between accurate fracture reduction and soft-tissue morbidity. METHODS: Fifty patients were eligible for review after treatment for isolated simple zygoma fractures using a combination of Gillies elevation and percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation between 1992 and 2003. Fourteen patients were available for examination at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. Quantifiable parameters, including orbitozygomatic complex position, ocular globe projection, and infraorbital nerve function, were measured. All patients underwent qualitative assessment by independent, blinded observers. Negative soft-tissue sequelae were recorded. RESULTS: The mean differences between injured and uninjured sides of the face for malar eminence projection, height, and lateral position were 2.5, 2.7, and 2.3 mm, respectively. The mean difference in ocular globe projection was 1.23 mm. When these results were compared with those previously published for open reduction and internal fixation, no statistically significant difference was noted. The qualitative observers were able to identify the affected side 12 percent of the time. Other than a small punctate scar noted in one patient at the Kirschner wire insertion site, no other negative cutaneous or eyelid sequelae were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study objectively shows that Gillies elevation combined with percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation provides facial contour restoration that is not significantly different from that of open reduction and internal fixation, with less soft-tissue morbidity. The technique is safe, easy to learn, and easy to perform, and should be considered in cases of isolated simple zygoma fractures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".