Retromandibular Anteroparotid Versus Transparotid Approach for Subcondylar Mandibular Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study of 80 Cases

Background/Objectives: Subcondylar mandibular fractures represent a challenging subset of maxillofacial trauma due to their proximity to the temporomandibular joint and the facial nerve. The retromandibular approach can be performed through either an anteroparotid or a transparotid route, but comparative clinical data remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes, complication profiles, and operative parameters associated with the retromandibular anteroparotid versus transparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of subcondylar fractures. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 80 consecutive patients treated for subcondylar mandibular fractures at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Umberto I General Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, between 2018 and 2025. All patients underwent ORIF via a retromandibular approach (anteroparotid or transparotid) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Demographic data, trauma etiology, fracture morphology (classified as simple or complex), associated fractures, surgical approach, fixation details, operative time, hospital stay, and postoperative complications were collected. Facial nerve function was clinically assessed and graded using the House–Brackmann scale. Associations between fracture type, surgical approach, number of plates, and complications were evaluated using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, while operative time was compared using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests (p < 0.05). Results: The cohort had a mean age of 41.9 years and was predominantly male (67.5%). The anteroparotid route was used in 54 patients (67.5%) and the transparotid route in 26 (32.5%). Overall, 10 patients (12.5%) developed postoperative complications, including transient facial nerve weakness, malocclusion, visible scarring, and sialocele. All cases of sialocele occurred in the transparotid subgroup, whereas no salivary complications were observed after the anteroparotid approach. No permanent facial nerve deficits, temporomandibular joint ankylosis, or long-term facial asymmetry were recorded at 6 months. No significant association was found between surgical approach and overall complication rate, but complex fracture patterns were significantly associated with increased operative time. Conclusions: The retromandibular approach is a safe and effective option for ORIF of subcondylar mandibular fractures. Both anteroparotid and transparotid routes provided reliable exposure and stable fixation with low complication rates. The anteroparotid route appears to minimize parotid-related complications, such as sialocele, while maintaining comparable functional outcomes. These findings support the retromandibular anteroparotid approach as a valuable alternative in the surgical management of subcondylar fractures.