Apropos to the article by [1] entitled "Variations in the retromandibular transparotid approach to the condyle-transparotid versus anteroparotid transmassetric- a prospective clinical comparative study," a few clarifications are in order. According to the author, the mandibular condylar processes are one of the most common sites of fracture in mandibular fractures. The condylar fracture accounts for almost 20% to 50% of all maxillofacial fractures due to the thin neck and the location against a strong cranial base condyle, increasing the chances of fracture during load transfer. There is an inadequacy in this study since the authors stated that the surgical procedure for condylar neck and subcondylar fractures is still debated widely. Open-ended treatment of mandibular condyle fractures relies on accurate diagnosis, appropriate surgical approach, and minimizing severe osteosynthesis and broken condyle, which provides good results and immediate function compared to close reduction. The closed reduction technique has been associated with closed weight loss and dysfunction, leading to complications such as facial nerve damage, mandibular asymmetry, trismus, ankylosis, and malocclusion. The authors mentioned in their review that extraoral surgical approaches to ORIF include preauricular, submandibular, retromandibular, and transmassetric anteroparotid approaches. Furthermore,the authors reported five cases who were treated with an inferioparotid transmassetric approach, respectively. Using this approach did not result in postoperative infection, haemorrhage, occlusal discrepancy, limited mouth opening, or facial nerve weakness