Skip to main content
Log in

Retraction force necessary to expose the mandibular neck in Risdon and high cervical anteroparotid transmasseteric approaches: an anatomic comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this anatomic study was to compare the retraction force necessary to expose the mandibular neck in the Risdon and the high cervical anteroparotid transmasseteric (HAT) approaches.

Methods

An anatomic study was performed on 18 formalin-embalmed cadavers. We performed a Risdon approach on the left side, and an HAT approach on the right side in all the cases. The subjects were placed in a normative frame and the force necessary to maintain a satisfactory exposure of the condyle was measured with a system of cables, pulleys, and mechanical dynamometer. The statistical comparison between the two sides was carried out using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired series.

Results

In all the cases, the region of interest was exposed as in the operating room. In the Risdon approach, the mean force was 32 Newtons (4–47). In the HAT approach, the mean force was 19 Newtons (4–33). The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The age, gender, and duration of conservation had no influence on the retraction force.

Conclusion

In the HAT approach, the retraction of the soft tissues was significantly lower than in the Risdon approach. This study gave an additional explanation to the remarkable safety of the HAT approach. Our results were in favor of the generalization of this technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arcuri F, Bruccoli M, Baragiotta N, Benech R, Ferrero S, Benech A (2012) Analysis of complications following endoscopically assisted treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg 23:196–198. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824de328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E 3rd (2015) Surgical treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures provides better outcomes than closed treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:482–493. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2014.09.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benkhadra M, Bouchot A, Gérard J, Genelot D, Trouilloud P, Martin L, Girard C, Danino A, Anderhuber F, Feigl G (2011) Flexibility of Thiel’s embalmed cadavers: the explanation is probably in the muscles. Surg Radiol Anat 33:365–368. doi:10.1007/s00276-010-0703-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhutia O, Kumar L, Jose A, Roychoudhury A, Trikha A (2014) Evaluation of facial nerve following open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture through retromandibular transparotid approach. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:236–240. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheynet F, Aldegheri A, Chossegros C, Bourezak Z, Blanc JL (1997) The retromandibular approach in fractures of the mandibular condyle. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 98:288–294

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chrcanovic BR (2015) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:158–179. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.09.024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cranin AN, Brooklyn NY (1975) Comparison of two submandibular incisions on the motor function of lower lip. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 40:327–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eckelt U, Gerber S (1981) Draw-screw osteosynthesis with a novel osteosynthesis instrument set in mandibular condyle fractures. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl 69:485–490

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis E 3rd, McFadden D, Simon P, Throckmorton G (2000) Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:950–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellis E III, Zide MF (1995) Surgical approaches to facial skeleton. LWW, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kadlub N, Trost O, Duvernay A, Parmentier J, Wirth C, Malka G (2008) Orthopaedic treatment of extraarticular condylar fractures of the mandible: retrospective study of 39 unilateral cases. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 109:301–305. doi:10.1016/j.stomax.2008.05.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee L, Mueller RV, Lee K, Mathes SJ (1998) Endoscopic subcondylar fracture repair: functional, aesthetic and radiographic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1434–1443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyer C, Zink S, Chatelain B, Wilk A (2008) Clinical experience with osteosynthesis of subcondylar fractures of the mandible using TCP plates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36:260–268. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2008.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer C, Zink S, Wilk A (2006) Modified Risdon approach for the treatment of subcondylar fractures of the mandible. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 107:449–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nassif PS, Kokoska MS, Homan S, Cooper MH, Thomas JR (1998) Comparison of subperiosteal vs subgaleal elevation techniques used in forehead lifts. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124:1209–1215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rastogi S, Sharma S, Kumar S, Reddy MP, Niranjanaprasad Indra B (2015) Fracture of mandibular condyle—to open or not to open: an attempt to settle the controversy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 119:608–613. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.01.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Risdon F (1933) Ankylosis of the temporomaxillary joint. Am Dent Assoc 21:933

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shi D, Patill PM, Gupta R (2015) Facial nerve injuries associated with the retromandibular transparotid approach for reduction and fixation of mandibular condyle fracture. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43:402–407. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2014.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tang W, Gao C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L, Tian W (2009) Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:552–558. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Throckmorton GS, Ellis E 3rd (2000) Recovery of mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29:421–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Trost O, Abu El-Naaj I, Trouilloud P, Danino A, Malka G (2008) High cervical transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:201–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Trost O, Trouilloud P, Malka G (2009) Open reduction and internal fixation of low subcondylar fractures of mandible through high cervical transmasseteric anteroparotid approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:2446–2451. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Trost O, Péron JM (2013) Latest trends in the surgical management of mandibular condyle fractures in France, 2005–2012. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale 114:341–348. doi:10.1016/j.revsto.2013.05.004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang TM, Lin CL, Kuo KJ, Shih C (1991) Surgical anatomy of the mandibular ramus of the facial nerve in Chinese adults. Acta Anat (Basel) 142:126–131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Woltmann M, Faveri Rd, Sgrott EA (2006) Anatomosurgical study of the marginal mandibular branch of the facial nerve for submandibular surgical approach. Braz Dent J 17:71–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ziarah HA, Atkinson ME (1981) The surgical anatomy of the cervical distribution of the facial nerve. Br J Oral Surg 19:171–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zrounba H, Lutz JC, Zink S, Wilk A (2014) Epidemiology and treatment outcome of surgically treated mandibular condyle fractures. A five years retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:879–884. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Belloncle, technician in the laboratory of anatomy, for his help and support, and Dr. Mher Berje Joulakian, MD, for his experience in biostatistics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Trost.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest as far as this study is concerned.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adnot, J., Feuss, A., Duparc, F. et al. Retraction force necessary to expose the mandibular neck in Risdon and high cervical anteroparotid transmasseteric approaches: an anatomic comparative study. Surg Radiol Anat 39, 1079–1084 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-017-1853-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-017-1853-8

Keywords

Navigation