J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg.  2021 Aug;47(4):327-334. 10.5125/jkaoms.2021.47.4.327.

Direct transparotid approach via a modified mini-preauricular incision for open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fractures

• Lee JS
• Kang SH

• KMID: 2519830
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2021.47.4.327

Abstract

A transparotid approach, with a retromandibular or preauricular incision, is an alternative surgical approach for treating a subcondylar fracture and reducing the potential for complications such as injury to the facial nerves. However, retromandibular and preauricular incisions are both created far away from the parotid gland–dissection area. Thus, it is necessary to undermine the skin and retract it anteriorly to access the surgical field. Here, we introduce a modified approach wherein the incision allows for direct access to the fracture site. This approach may be adopted to shorten the incision length, reduce the retraction trauma at the surgical site, and help prevent injury to the facial nerve.

Keyword

Mandibular fracture; Parotid gland; Facial nerve injury

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 A. Landmark line for the skin incision. A line was drawn, 2 cm long, at 1 cm anterior to and parallel to the placement of a conventional preauricular incision. It was located immediately below the earlobe, parallel to the Frankfort horizontal plane. B. Skin incision. The incision is less than 2 cm long, made inferior to the earlobe in the direction of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system. The parotid capsule incised horizontally (purple dotted line), and the parotid tissues were bluntly dissected open with vessel forceps.

• 

  Fig. 2 The masseter muscles. As the dissection continued, the masseter muscles were encountered. They were dissected obliquely (green dotted line), parallel to the masseter muscle fibers anteriorly and posteriorly.

• 

  Fig. 3 The periosteum dissection. The periosteum was dissected superiorly and inferiorly, and the fracture site was exposed for a short distance, with retraction.

• 

  Fig. 4 A. Reduction and fixation of the fracture. A four-hole mini-plate was fixed under retraction with a posterior, sigmoidal area and inferior direction. B. Fractured mandibular subcondyle repair. The fractured area was fixed with two four-hole metal mini-plates and 6-mm screws, after confirming that the dental occlusion was favorable.

• 

  Fig. 5 A. Panoramic radiograph taken preoperatively of the 22-year-old patient. B. Coronal view of a computed tomography scan taken preoperatively of the 22-year-old patient.

• 

  Fig. 6 Panoramic radiograph taken immediately postoperatively in the 22-year-old patient. The image shows good reduction of the subcondyle fracture.

• 

  Fig. 7 Seven-month outcome of surgery for a subcondyle fracture in the 22-year-old patient. No significant postsurgical scar was visible at the skin incision site after seven months.

• 

  Fig. 8 A. Panoramic radiograph taken preoperatively of the 37-year-old patient. B. Coronal view of a computed tomography scan taken preoperatively of the 37-year-old patient.

• 

  Fig. 9 Panoramic radiograph taken immediately postoperatively in the 37-year-old patient. The image shows good reduction at the fractured sites in the mandible.

• 

  Fig. 10 Seven-month surgical outcome of the subcondyle fracture in the 37-year-old patient. No postsurgical scar was visible at the skin incision site after seven months.

Reference

References

1. Rashid A, Eyeson J, Haider D, van Gijn D, Fan K. 2013; Incidence and patterns of mandibular fractures during a 5-year period in a London teaching hospital. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 51:794–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.04.007 . DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.04.007. PMID: 23735734.

2. Kang DH. 2012; Surgical management of a mandible subcondylar fracture. Arch Plast Surg. 39:284–90. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.284 . DOI: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.284. PMID: 22872829. PMCID: PMC3408271.

3. Haug RH, Assael LA. 2001; Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 59:370–5. discussion 375–6. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.21868 . DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.01.001. PMID: 20363548.

4. Worsaae N, Thorn JJ. 1994; Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of unilateral dislocated low subcondylar fractures: a clinical study of 52 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 52:353–60. discussion 360–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(94)90436-7 . DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(94)90436-7. PMID: 8133366.

5. Kang SH, Choi EJ, Kim HW, Kim HJ, Cha IH, Nam W. 2012; Complications in endoscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 113:201–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.02.005 . DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.02.005. PMID: 22677737.

6. Nam SM, Lee JH, Kim JH. 2013; The application of the Risdon approach for mandibular condyle fractures. BMC Surg. 13:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-13-25 . DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-25. PMID: 23829537. PMCID: PMC3708819.

7. Van Hevele J, Nout E. 2018; Complications of the retromandibular transparotid approach for low condylar neck and subcondylar fractures: a retrospective study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 44:73–8. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.2.73 . DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.2.73. PMID: 29732312. PMCID: PMC5932275.

8. Kanno T, Sukegawa S, Tatsumi H, Karino M, Nariai Y, Nakatani E, et al. 2016; Does a retromandibular transparotid approach for the open treatment of condylar fractures result in facial nerve injury? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 74:2019–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.05.022 . DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.05.022. PMID: 27318190.

9. Bhutia O, Kumar L, Jose A, Roychoudhury A, Trikha A. 2014; Evaluation of facial nerve following open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture through retromandibular transparotid approach. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 52:236–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.12.002 . DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.12.002. PMID: 24370443.

10. 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 Craniomaxillofac Surg. 43:1595–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.023 . DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.023. PMID: 26286253.

11. Shi D, Patil PM, Gupta R. 2015; Facial nerve injuries associated with the retromandibular transparotid approach for reduction and fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 43:402–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.12.009 . DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.12.009. PMID: 25600628.

12. Knepil GJ, Kanatas AN, Loukota RJ. 2011; Classification of surgical approaches to the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 49:664–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.02.009 . DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.02.009. PMID: 21453998.

13. Ruiz R, Schlund M, Raoul G, Kyheng M, Fontaine C, Nicot R. 2018; Mandibular subcondylar fracture accessibility with transparotid approach by rhytidectomy and modified Risdon approach: an anatomical comparative study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 46:2256–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.10.011 . DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.10.011. PMID: 30420152.

14. Saylam C, Ucerler H, Orhan M, Ozek C. 2006; Anatomic landmarks of the buccal branches of the facial nerve. Surg Radiol Anat. 28:462–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-006-0127-7 . DOI: 10.1007/s00276-006-0127-7. PMID: 16838086.

15. Tang W, Gao 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. 67:552–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066 . DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.066. PMID: 19231779.

16. Liu P, Li F, Peng L. 2021; An anatomical landmark for retromandibular transparotid approach to treat subcondylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 32:e427–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007233 . DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007233. PMID: 33201073.

17. Yabe T, Tsuda T, Hirose S, Ozawa T. 2013; Preauricular transparotid approach to mandibular condylar fractures without dissecting facial nerves. J Craniofac Surg. 24:1365–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318285d9a3 . DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318285d9a3. PMID: 23851809.

18. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. 2004; The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 113:1960–5. discussion 1966–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56 . DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56. PMID: 15253184.

19. Kudur MH, Pai SB, Sripathi H, Prabhu S. 2009; Sutures and suturing techniques in skin closure. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 75:425–34. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.53155 . DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.53155. PMID: 19584482.