Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 18, 2026

Lateral Molar Approach-Driven Transoral Endoscopic Procedure for Benign Infratemporal Fossa Tumor Resection
Published on: August 15, 2025
Incision Selection in Mandibular Angle ORIF: Postoperative Complications and Neurosensory Outcomes by Approach
Timothy C Olsen, Keith Sweitzer1, Raquel Arias-Camison1
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
Background:
Mandibular angle fractures carry disproportionate postoperative morbidity, yet optimal incision selection remains controversial despite its clinical importance.
Objective:
The aim of the study was to evaluate whether incisional approach, particularly trocar-assisted transbuccal access, is independently associated with any postoperative complication, including postoperative paresthesia, after ORIF of mandibular angle fractures.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing ORIF for mandibular angle fractures was analyzed with respect to incision approach, including intraoral, transparotid, retroparotid/submandibular, and trocar-assisted transbuccal. The primary endpoint was any postoperative complication; secondary outcomes included infection, paresthesia/neuropraxia, return to the operating room (RTOR), and postoperative third molar extraction. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking status, isolated angle fracture, comminuted and/or displaced fracture, and intraoperative third molar extraction.
Results:
Among 116 patients, median age and body mass index were 31.7 years (interquartile range, 23.4-46.3) and 24.4 kg/m 2 (interquartile range, 21.9-27.8), respectively. Incisional approaches were intraoral (n = 65), transparotid (n = 15), retroparotid/submandibular (n = 9), and trocar-assisted transbuccal (n = 27). Any complication occurred in 27/115 patients with postoperative follow-up (23.5%), with the highest unadjusted rate in the trocar-assisted transbuccal cohort (48.1%). In adjusted analysis (reference: intraoral), trocar use was associated with higher odds of any complication (OR, 6.22; P = 0.002), with no significant differences for transparotid or retroparotid/submandibular approaches. With trocar-assisted transbuccal as the reference, intraoral (OR, 0.18; P = 0.003) and transparotid (OR, 0.07; P = 0.024) approaches were protective. Among patients with documented neurologic assessment (n = 32), trocar use (OR, 8.63; P = 0.022) and intraoperative third molar extraction (OR, 6.61; P = 0.038) were associated with higher odds of neuropraxia. No adjusted incision-specific associations were observed for infection, postoperative third molar extraction, or RTOR.
Conclusions:
These findings support risk-aligned incision selection, suggest that trocar-assisted transbuccal access may warrant selective use in anatomically or mechanically constrained cases, and reinforce standardized documentation of postoperative nerve dysfunction to enable more reliable benchmarking and guide pragmatic decision-making across centers.
