Skip to main content


Log in

“Cervicomastoid Versus Retromandibular Extension of Pre-Auricular Incision in Transmasseteric Anteroparotid Approach for Condylar Fracture Management–a Prospective Study”

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript



Treating mandibular condylar fractures has always been a matter of debate and controversy. However, there are various approaches, but it is of utmost importance that the surgical procedure must guarantee maximum safety for the facial nerve with best cosmetic outcome and minimizing complications. This prospective study was designed to compare cervicomastoid and retromandibular extension of pre-auricular incision in transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for condylar fractures management.

Patients and Methods

The study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere from November 2015 to May 2017, and a total of 16 condylar fractures were surgically accessed for the management and were divided into two groups, cervicomastoid (Group A) and retromandibular extension (Group B) for evaluating parameters such as to assess the access to condylar region, post-operative edema, cosmetic outcome, time taken to access and facial nerve injury.


Clinically the time taken was significantly less in the cervicomastoid group even though, there was no statistically significant difference regarding access to the fracture site, post-operative edema, facial nerve injury and cosmetic outcome between two groups.


In our opinion the anteroparotid transmasseteric approach is appropriate for surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures as it provides adequate access, ensures safety of the facial nerve and is relatively easy to master. We realize that rather both incisions are good, but cervicomastoid variant is better choice in many aspects one being time taken for the surgery because of better tissue laxity of neck skin when seen in comparison.

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

Similar content being viewed by others


  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. Mohan P, Jeevan Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, Pavan Kumar B, KapilPatil (2012) Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg 11(4):435–441

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohamad AM (2011) Transmasseteric anteroparotid approach for mandibular condylar fractures-Merits and Demerits, Egypt. J Plast Reconstr Surg 35(2):227–232

    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(4):262–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zide MF, Kent JN (1983) Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41(2):89–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernandez JA, Mathog RH (1987) Open treatment of condylar fractures with biphase technique. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(3):262–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Narayan V, Ramadorai A, Poornima R, Natarajan N (2012) Transmasseteric anterior parotid approach for condylar fractures: experience of 129 cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50(5):420–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Valiati R, Ibrahim D, Abreu MER, Heitz C, Oliveira RB, Pagnoncelli RM et al (2008) The treatment of condylar fractures: to open or not to open? A critical review of this controversy. Int J Med Sci 5(6):313–318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sample-Equality (accessed on 04 November2015).

  10. de Santana-Santos T, de Souza-Santos JAS, Martins-Filho PRS, da Silva LCF, de OliveiraeSilva ED, Gomes ACA (2013) Prediction of postoperative facial swelling, pain and trismus following third molar surgery based on preoperative variables. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 18(1):e65-70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. House JW, Brackmann DE (1985) Facial nerve grading system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 93(2):146–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE (2007) Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7):1892–1897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fearmonti et al (2010) A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 10:354–363

    Google Scholar 

  14. Croce A, Moretti A, Vitullo F, Castriotta A, de Rosa M, Citraro L (2010) Transparotid approach for mandibular condylar neck and subcondylar fractures. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 30(6):303–309

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Chrcanovic BR (2015) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(2):158–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton GS, Palmieri C (2000) Open treatment of condylar process fractures: assessment of adequacy of repositioning and maintenance of stability. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58(1):27–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang WG, Chen CT, Tsay PK, Chen YR (2002) Functional results of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures after open and closed treatment. J Trauma 52(3):498–503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Landes CA, Day K, Glasl B, Ludwig B, Sader R, Kovacs AF (2008) Prospective evaluation of closed treatment of non-displaced and non-dislocated mandibular condyle fractures versus open reposition and rigid fixation of displaced and dislocated fractures in children. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(6):1184–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(9):950–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Biglioli F, Colletti G (2008) Mini-retromandibular approach to condylar fractures. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 36(7):378–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vijay E, Balakrishnan R (2011) Comparison of approaches for the rigid fixation of sub-condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg Jan-Mar 10(1):38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Choi MG (2015) Transmasseteric antero-parotid facelift approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 23(41):149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(1):201–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aftab Aafreen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nitesh, C., Kirthi, R.K., Amar, U.P. et al. “Cervicomastoid Versus Retromandibular Extension of Pre-Auricular Incision in Transmasseteric Anteroparotid Approach for Condylar Fracture Management–a Prospective Study”. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 652–660 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: