Evaluation of Preauricular Retromandibular Anteroparotid Versus Retromandibular Through Parotid Approach

Overview

Of all the bones in the maxillofacial area, the condylar process is the most susceptible to fracture. The incidence of condylar fracture accounts for 25% to 50% of all mandibular fractures. Though remained controversial for a long time, surgical treatment of displaced subcondylar fractures appears today as the gold standard. Although there is a developing preference for open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures, the optimal approach to the ramus condylar unit remains controversial. Various approaches have been proposed, and each has specific shortcomings and disadvantages. Retromandibular, submandibular, transoral, and through parotid approaches are generally performed and sometimes used with an endoscope. Limited access and injury to the facial nerve are the most common problems, while Wilson introduced a new through masseter anteroparotid approach, this technique offers excellent access to the ramus condylar unit, and facial nerve damage risk is reduced.

Fractures of the mandibular condylar process have been documented to be one of the most common occurring mandibular fractures. When open treatment is selected, several surgical approaches can be used to expose, reduce, and stabilize the fracture site, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Surgical approaches to the fractured mandibular condyle are broadly classified into intraoral and extraoral approaches. Intraoral approaches can be performed with or without endoscopic assistance. The most common extraoral approaches are submandibular, Risdon, preauricular, retroauricular, and retromandibular through parotid or through masseter approaches. An intraoral approach is time consuming and requires special instruments such as an endoscope, and additional training. Furthermore, cases of high fractures and/or medially displaced condylar fractures are technically difficult to manage through an intraoral approach, incorrect anatomical reduction, condylar head resorption, myofascial pain, and malocclusions have been reported to be more common complications following the intraoral approach when compared to extraoral approaches. In contrast, extraoral approaches are commonly used because they produce better visualization of the fracture site and therefore facilitate fracture reduction and fixation. However, extraoral approaches are complicated by the risk of injury to the facial, great auricular, and auriculotemporal nerves, visible scars, sialoceles, Frey syndrome and salivary fistulas.