Variations in the retromandibular approach to the condyle-transparotid versus anteroparotid transmasseteric - a prospective clinical comparative study.

Background: The management of mandibular condylar fracture remains controversial many surgeons still favour the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) which provides good result and immediate functioning as compared to closed reduction. With proven consensus for ORIF, dilemma remains in choosing the surgical approach to condyle due to proximity of complex and important anatomic structure. Various extra-oral surgical approaches are available for ORIF including preauricular, submandibular, retromandibular, transmasseteric anteroparotid etc. Variations in retromandibular approach such as transparotid, retro-parotid and anteroparotid are reported in literature. In our study we compared the retromandibular transparotid and retromandibular anteroparotid transmasseteric variations.

Methodology: Thirty condylar fracture in 26 patients, 15 in each group (group A - Retromandibular transparotid approach & group B - Retromandibular anteroparotid approach) were treated under general anaesthesia with naos-tracheal intubation and by the same surgeon having 20 years of experience in maxillofacial surgeries. We evaluated time taken for the procedure, amount of bone exposure, intra-operative haemorrhage. Postoperative presence of infection, sinus and fistula formation at the incision site, parotid fistula formation, facial nerve functioning using House-Brackman scale in immediate postoperative period, 3 month postoperatively and 6 month postoperatively.

Result: The mean average time taken for group A was 78.2minutes and mean average time taken for group B was 64.8minutes. None of the patient had haemorrhage intra-operatively in both the groups. Exposure was sufficient in both the groups with same length of the incision. None of the patient suffered from postoperative infection in both the groups. Parotid fistula formation was present in 2 patients in group A while none of the patient had parotid fistula in group B. Three patients out of 15 had the transient facial nerve weakness in group A which got resolved in 6 month while none of the patient had facial nerve weakness in group B. All patients had adequate mouth opening with no occlusal discrepancies.

Conclusion: Retromandibular anteroparotid approach as described in this study has proven to be an extremely useful approach provides good access, and associated with minimal complications and morbidity compare to retromandibular transparotid approach. It is hence safe to say that this approach is relatively useful for an inexperienced and novice surgeon as well.