OBJECTIVE: This clinical study was carried out on thirty patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for condylar fractures via rhytidectomy/retromandibular approach were evaluated. METHODS: Group I (rhytidectomy approach) were compared and evaluated clinically and radiologically with Group II (retromandibular approach) for the following parameters like surgical access, duration of surgery, anatomic reduction assessment with relevant radiographs, occlusal discrepancies, need for post operative IMF, facial nerve morbidity, other post operative complications and scarring. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of surgery which was found to be significantly lesser for group II than group I. Access was better in group I. Scar was well camouflaged in patients of Group I when compared to group II. CONCLUSION: The rhytidectomy (Face-lift) incision which we have used in our study has all the advantages of the retromandibular approach with an added advantage of a less conspicuous scar and a wider exposure of the fracture site. The only disadvantage is the added time required for the closure which is not a concern as the aesthetic outcome of this technique is superior to the other approaches.
OBJECTIVE: This clinical study was carried out on thirty patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for condylar fractures via rhytidectomy/retromandibular approach were evaluated. METHODS: Group I (rhytidectomy approach) were compared and evaluated clinically and radiologically with Group II (retromandibular approach) for the following parameters like surgical access, duration of surgery, anatomic reduction assessment with relevant radiographs, occlusal discrepancies, need for post operative IMF, facial nerve morbidity, other post operative complications and scarring. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of surgery which was found to be significantly lesser for group II than group I. Access was better in group I. Scar was well camouflaged in patients of Group I when compared to group II. CONCLUSION: The rhytidectomy (Face-lift) incision which we have used in our study has all the advantages of the retromandibular approach with an added advantage of a less conspicuous scar and a wider exposure of the fracture site. The only disadvantage is the added time required for the closure which is not a concern as the aesthetic outcome of this technique is superior to the other approaches.