封闭式负压引流和传统切开引流在颌面间隙感染中的效果比较

目的:探讨封闭式负压引流和传统切开引流在治疗颌面间隙感染中的效果差异.方法:选择2017年2月—2019年8月收治的颌面部间隙感染患者139例,采用随机区组方式分为负压组69例(封闭式负压引流)和传统组70例(传统切开引流);比较2组的视觉模拟疼痛量表(VAS)评分、血清降钙素原(PCT)、C反应蛋白(CRP)变化,治...

Comparison of the effects of closed negative pressure drainage and traditional open drainage in maxillofacial space infection

PURPOSE: To investigate the difference between closed negative pressure drainage and traditional open drainage in the treatment of maxillofacial space infection. METHODS: A total of 139 patients with maxillofacial space infection treated from February 2017 to August 2019 were selected and randomly divided into negative pressure group (closed negative pressure drainage, n=69) and traditional group (traditional incision drainage, n=70). Differences in visual analog scale (VAS) score, changes in serum procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), treatment effect, number of dressing changes, antibiotic use time, and granulation tissue growth time were compared between the two groups using SPSS 21.0 software package. RESULTS: Before treatment, there was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). After 3 and 7 days of treatment, the VAS scores of the negative pressure group were significantly lower than the traditional group(P<0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in serum CRP and PCT levels between the two groups(P>0.05). After 3 days and 7 days of treatment, the serum CRP and PCT levels of the negative pressure group were significantly lower than those of the traditional group (P<0.05); the number of dressing changes, antibiotic use time, and granulation tissue growth time of the negative pressure group were significantly lower than those of the traditional group (P<0.05); the curative rate and effective rate were 60.87%, 37.68% in the negative pressure group, and 44.29%, 51.43% in the traditional group. CONCLUSIONS: Closed negative pressure drainage is more effective than traditional incision drainage in treating maxillofacial space infection.