Comparing vacuum-assisted closure against conventional approach in severe deep neck infection: A retrospective case-control study

比较真空辅助闭合术与传统方法治疗严重深颈部感染的疗效:一项回顾性病例对照研究

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) against traditional drainage technique, using a retrospective case-control study design, in terms of managing deep neck infections (DNIs). METHODS: Patients presenting to Peking Union Medical College Hospital diagnosed with DNIs were recruited in this study. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of DNI patients and divided them into (a) VAC placement group (26 cases) and (b) traditional drainage group (57 cases) according to whether VAC was placed. The differences in length of stay (LOS), wound healing time, and debridement frequency were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients had multiple-space infections, i.e. infection at two or more sites. The debridement frequency of the VAC group was significantly lower than that of the traditional drainage group (p = 0.001). The wound healing time of the traditional drainage group and VAC group was 38 days (a range of 13-98 days) and 40 days (a range of 11-106 days), respectively; the average LOS was 15 days (a range of 2-68 days) and 16 days (a range of 4-35 days), respectively; and the debridement frequencies were one time (a range of 0-3 times) and zero times (a range of 0-2 times), respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in wound healing time and hospitalization duration (p = 0.319 and 0.937). CONCLUSIONS: VAC treatment of DNIs has significant advantages in reducing the frequency of debridement and patient suffering, but it does not show significant advantages in wound healing. Randomized trials are still needed to demonstrate its efficacy.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。