Experience gained from using three extra oral approaches to the neck of the mandibular condyle: A comparative study

Reiadh K. Al-Kamali

doi:10.15218/zjms.2014.0003

Authors

Reiadh K. Al-Kamali Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2014.0003

Keywords:

Condylar neck surgery, preauricular, submandibular and retromandibular-transmasseteric approches

Abstract

Background and objective: Surgical treatment of condylar diseases involves some problems concerning the choice of the surgical approach to the condylar neck that provides adequate exposure of the area with the least trauma to the facial nerve and parotid tissue. In this paper, personal experience with the surgical treatment of some mandibular condylar neck problems by the preauricular, submandibular and the retromandibular- transmasseteric approaches is reported. Methods: Over the last 5 years, 52 condylar neck surgeries were carried out on 41 patients to treat 18 cases of condylar neck fractures, 19 cases of plate and bone graft fixation after resection of mandibular tumours and 4 cases of chronic pain and dysfunction of the TMJ. During follow-up, functions of the mandible and facial nerve branches were monitored as does the presence or absence of sialocele or parotid fistula. The appearance of the scar post- surgically and the quality of the access achieved by each type of the approaches to the condylar neck were also appraised. Results: The incidence of apparent postoperative scar appeared most after the preauricular approach to the condylar neck and least after the submandibular approach. Difficulties in management of condylar neck fractures are found more with the preauricular and least with the retromandibular-transmasseteric approaches. Weaknesses in the branches of the facial nerve are noticed in 50% of the preauricular approaches, 6.89% of the retromandibular-transmasseteric approaches, and 47.36% of the submandibular approaches. In all of the patients, this problem lasted for 3-6 weeks to resolve spontaneously thereafter. All the patients in this work suffered limitation of jaw opening in the early postsurgical period. This problem was a transient one and due to pain and muscle spasm. However, persistent limitation of jaw opening is reported in 13.79% of the retromandibular-transmasseteric approaches and 47.36% of the submandibular approaches to the mandibular condyle. Conclusion: Experience has shown that the retromandibular-transmasseteric approach to the condylar neck allows for good anatomical repositioning of the fractured condyle and direct access for precise positioning and fixation of the plate or bone graft to achieve satisfactory mandibular function with the least chance of trauma to the facial nerve and parotid tissues.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Haug RH, Assael LA. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59:370-5.

Dolwick MF, Kretzschmar DP. Morbidity associated with the preauricular and perimeatal approaches to the temporo-mandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982; 40:699-700.

Chen CT, Lai JP, TungTC, Chen YR.Endoscopically assisted mandibular subcondylar fracture repair. Plast Reconstr Surg1999; 103:60-5.

Vesnaver A, Gorjanc M, Eberlinc A, Dovsak DA, Kansky AA. The periauriculartransparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2005; 33:169-79.

Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA,Transmassetericantero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg S 2005; 43:57-60

Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota RA, Rasse M. Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment and mandibulomaxillary fixation of fractures of the mandibular condylar process: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study with special evaluation of fracture level. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66:2537-44.

Langdon JD. Parotid surgery. In Langdon JD, Patel MF, Ord RA, Brennan PA. Operative oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold, an Hachette UK Company; 2011. P. 390.

Davis BA, Anson BJ, Budinger JM, Kurth LE. Surgical anatomy of the facial nerve and parotid gland based upon a study of 350 cervicofacial halves. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1956; 102:385-412.

Banks P, MacKenenzie I: Condylotomy. A clinical and experimental appraisal of a surgical technique. J Maxillofac Surg 1975; 3:170-81.

Marker P, Nielsen A, Lehmann-Bastian H. Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Part 2: Results of treatment of 348 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38:422-6.

Ellis E, McFadden D, Simon P .surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58(9):950-8.

Downie JJ, Devlin MF, Carton ATM, Hislop WS. Prospective study of morbidity associated with open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured condyle by the transparotid approach. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 47:370-3.