Comparison of three different approaches in treatment of mandibular condylar fractures – Our experience

BACKGROUND: The principal transfacial routes described to approach condylar process fractures are preauricular, retromandibular, high submandibular, and their various modifications. The selection of a specific surgical approach mainly depends on the level of condylar fracture, displacement/dislocation of the proximal segment and time elapsed from the date of trauma. Not too many studies proclaim a unanimous consensus on “gold standard” approaches for particular levels of fracture. AIM: This study was conducted with the aim to lay down guidelines for determining the ideal surgical approach for treating different condylar fractures based on different clinical situations. METHODOLOGY: This prospective study was conducted on 60 patients that underwent open reduction internal fixation of condylar fractures according to preset study design. Inclusion criteria were fracture displacement more than 10 degrees, dislocation, shortening of ramal height more than 2 mm. Patients having maxillofacial fractures other than mandible and condylar fractures in edentulous patients were excluded from this study. RESULTS: The risk of facial nerve injury was more in endaural group and parotid fistula was more evident in retromandibular subparotid group but there was no statistical difference between the groups. The surgical scar was inconspicuous in all three groups. Excellent results were achieved in the other parameters such as mouth opening, range of motion, bite force, and occlusion with all the three approaches. Postoperative CT scan showed satisfactory anatomical reduction. CONCLUSION: This study concludes that the decision-making on the approach to be selected for any particular condylar fracture depends on the level of fracture, presence of fracture dislocation, and time elapsed from the date of trauma.