Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of Preauricular Approach Versus Retromandibular Approach in Management of Condylar Fractures

  • Comparative Study
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The aim of the study is to compare the two extra oral approaches to the TMJ viz preauricular and retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures of mandible.

Methods and Materials

Patients with fractured dislocation and displacement of mandible condyle in medial direction were managed by preauricular approach. Patients with lateral displacement of mandibular condyle were managed by retromandibular approach. OPG, Reverse towne’s, and C.T. scan were taken in all the cases prior to surgery to assess the pattern of displacement.

Results

In our study both approaches have given excellent access and visibility to the condylar fractures but with limitations in each technique. Minimal intraoperative and postoperative complications were encountered in both approaches. The duration of the procedure for preauricular approach was much longer when compared with retromandibular approach. Facial nerve weakness was common in patients treated with preauricular approach, which they improved over a period of time and had complete recovery. Postoperative scar was imperceptible in all cases and good cosmetic results were seen with both approaches. Mouth opening, mandibular movements and occlusion were more or less same in both the approaches while pain and clicking was common in preauricular approach.

Conclusion

Both approaches have good results in managing condylar fractures with retromandibular approach having ease of access and ease of fixation. So one can always give preference to retromandibular approach over preauricular approach in managing the condylar fracture except in some cases where preauricular approach is the only option like anteromedial dislocation or complete medial dislocation of condylar segment. Situations, where patients who reported very late for the surgery with resultant scarring of the tissue, in those cases preauricular approach is the only option.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacGreggor AB, Fordyce GL (1957) The treatment of fractures of the neck of the mandibular condyle. Br Dent J 102:351

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dahlstrom L, Kahnenberg KE, Lindahl L (1989) 15 year follow-up on condylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. De Riu G, Anghinoni et al (2001) A comparison of open and closed treatment of condylar fractures: a change in philosophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30:384–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walker RV (1988) Open reduction of condylar fractures of the mandible in conjunction with repair of discal injury: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zide MF, Kent JN (1983) Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernandez JA, Mathog RH (1987) Open treatment of condylar fractures with biphase technique. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:262–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellis E III, Dean J (1993) Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 76:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu CY, Shi XJ, Li Y (2004) Retromandibular incision and miniplate rigid fixation for condylar and subcondylar fractures. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 13(1):20–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chossegros C, Cheynet F, Blana JL, Bourezak Z (1996) Short retromandibular approach of subcondylar fractures. Clinical and radiographic long term evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 82:248–252

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellis Edward III, Throckmorton GaylordS, Palmieri Celso (2000) Open treatment of condylar process fractures: assessment of adequacy of repositioning and maintenance of stability. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:27–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis BR et al (2005) Free grafting of mandibular condylar fractures clinical outcomes in 10 consecutive patients. Int journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 34:871–876

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. A. Jeevan Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mohan, A.P., Jeevan Kumar, K.A., Venkatesh, V. et al. Comparison of Preauricular Approach Versus Retromandibular Approach in Management of Condylar Fractures. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 11, 435–441 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1

Keywords

Navigation