Skip to main content
Log in

Pre-auricular Transparotid Approach for the Management of Mandibular Condylar Fracture: An Experience of 82 Cases

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper retrospectively analyses the functional outcomes and complications associated with pre-auricular transparotid approach for the management of mandibular condylar fractures.

Material and Methodology

The retrospective data of 82 condylar fractures were analysing in 73 patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation with pre-auricular transparotid approach. Evaluation of post-operative complications and the post-operative occlusion status, maximal inter-incise opening, adequacy of reduction and stability of fixation were assessed clinically and radiographically.

Results

The exposure of fracture segment was adequate in all the cases, and fixation was easy with 2 mm delta miniplate. Transient facial nerve palsy occurred in 2 patients (2.43%). 1 patient developed sialocele which was managed conservatively. There were slight occlusal discrepancies in 10 patients at the end of 1-week follow-up which was corrected with guiding elastics at the end of 1-month follow-up. The reduction was adequate, and fixation was stable. The functional outcomes were satisfactory in term of mouth-opening and range of motion.

Conclusion

The pre-auricular transparotid approach provides direct access to the fracture site resulting in less retraction of the tissue containing facial nerve and also less amount of periosteal stripping is required, thus it maintains good vascularity to the fracture segments. It provides direct visualization of the fracture without much retraction of the tissue containing facial nerve branches. It allows better fixation of the fracture with very less complication which results in good functional outcomes.

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
Fig. 4

References

  1. Tang W, Gaw C, Long J, Lin Y, Wang H, Liu L et al (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(3):552–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilk A (2009) High perimandibular approach. In: Kleinheinz J, Meyer C (eds) Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Quintessence Verlag, UK, pp 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA (2005) Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43(1):57–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi BH, Yoo J (1999) Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88(3):292–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Meyer C, Zink S, Chatelain B, Wilk A (2008) Clinical experience with osteosynthesis of subcondylar fractures of the mandible using TCP plates. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 36:260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yabe T, Tsuda T, Hirose S, Ozawa T (2013) Preauricular transparotid approach to mandibular condylar fractures without dissecting facial nerves. J Craniofac Surg 24(4):1365–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ekholm A (1961) Fractures of condyloid process of mandible: a clinical, pantomographic, and electromyographic study. Proc Finn Dent Sot 57:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  8. Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Lindqvist C et al (1992) Different patterns of condylar fractures: An analysis of 382 patients in a 3-year period. J Oral MaxillofacSurg 50:1032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA (2006) Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: A five-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellis E, Moos KF (1985) el-Attar A: Ten years of mandibular fractures: An analysis of 2,137 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 59:120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marker P, Nielsen A, Bastian HL (2000) Fracture of the mandibular condyle. Part 1: patterns of distribution of types and causes of fractures in 348 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Giri KY, Singh AP, Dandriyal R, Indra N, Rastogi S, Mall SK, Chowdhury S, Singh HP (2015) Incidence and pattern of mandibular fractures in Rohilkhand region, Uttar Pradesh state, India: A retrospective study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 5(3):140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.07.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahgoub MA, El-Sabbagh AH, Abd El-Latif EA, Elhadidy MR (2018) Condylar fractures: review of 40 cases. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 8(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_133_17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis E, Simon P, Throckmorton G (2000) Occlusal results after open or closed treatment of fracturesof the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berner T, Essig H, Schumann P, Blumer M, Lanzer M, Rücker M, Gander T (2015) Closed versus open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: A meta-analysisof retrospective and prospective studies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 43(8):1404–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh V, Bhagol A, Dhingra R (2012) A comparative clinical evaluation of the outcome of patientstreated for bilateral fracture of the mandibular condyles. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:464–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellis E, Throckmorton GS (2005) Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 63(1):115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liao HT, Wang PF, Chen CT (2015) Experience with the transparotid approach via a mini-preauricular incision for surgical management of condylar neck fractures. J Cranio-maxillofac Surg 43:1595–1601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kolk A, Neff A (2015) Long-term results of ORIF of condylar head fractures of themandible: a prospective 5-year follow-up study of small-fragment positional screwosteosynthesis (SFPSO). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43:452–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Risdon F (1992) Ankylosis of the temporomaxillary joint. J Am Dent Assoc 21:1933–1937

    Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Kayat A, Bramley P (1979) A modified pre-auricular approach to the temporomandibularjoint and malar arch. Br J Oral Surg 17:91–103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vesnaver A, Gorjanc M, Eberlinc A, Dovsak DA, Kansky AA (2005) The periauriculartransparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ramaraj PN, Patil V, Singh R, George A, Vijayalakshmi G, Sharma M (2020) Variations in the retromandibular approach to the condyle-transparotid versus anteroparotid transmasseteric - a prospective clinical comparative study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 121(1):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.06.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shi J, Yuan H, Xu B (2013) Treatment of mandibular condyle fractures using a modified transparotid approach via the parotid mini-incision: experience with 31 cases. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083525

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Dolwick MF, Kretzschmar DP (1982) Morbidity associated with the preauricular and perimeatalapproaches to the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sergio Monteiro Lima J, Asprino L, Moreira RWF, de Moraes M (2011) Surgical complications ofmandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg 22:1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohan AP, Jeevan Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, Pavan Kumar B, Patil K (2012) Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 11(4):435–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jayavelu P, Riaz R, Tariq Salam AR, Saravanan B, Karthick R (2016) Difficulties encountered in preauricular approach over retromandibular approach in condylar fracture. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 8(Suppl 1):S175–S178. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.191953.PMID:27829774;PMCID:PMC5074026

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ebenezer V, Ramalingam B (2011) Comparison of Approaches for the Rigid Fixation of Sub-Condylar Fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10:38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Choi KY, Yang JD, Chung HY, Cho BC (2012) Current Concepts in the Mandibular Condyle Fracture Management Part II: Open Reduction Versus Closed Reduction. Arch Plast Surg 39(4):301–308. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Widmark G, Bågenholm T, Kahnberg KE, Lindahl L (1996) Open reduction of subcondylar fractures: A study of functional rehabilitation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25(2):107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(96)80052-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gataa IS, Faris BJ (2016) Patterns and surgical significance of facialnerv e branching within the parotid gland in 43 cases. Oral Maxillofac Surg 20(2):161–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-015-0543-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barham HP, Collister P, Eusterman VD, Terella AM (2015) The relationship of the facial nerve to the condylar process: a cadaveric study with implications for open reduction internal fixation. Int J Otolaryngol 2015:715126. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/715126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G et al (2018) Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgicalapproaches. JCraniomaxillofacSurg 46(3):398–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.10.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Katz AD, Catalano P (1987) The clinical significance of the various anastomotic branches of the facial nerve. Report of 100 patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(9):959–962. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1987.01860090057019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ellis E 3rd (2000) Condylar process fractures of the mandible. Facial Plast Surg 16(2):193–205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-12579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay Patil.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Girhe, V., Patil, V., Bhujbal, R. et al. Pre-auricular Transparotid Approach for the Management of Mandibular Condylar Fracture: An Experience of 82 Cases. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 21, 916–922 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01565-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01565-6

Keywords

Navigation