关键词: 封闭式负压引流, 切开引流, 颌面部间隙感染

Abstract: 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.

Key words: Closed negative pressure drainage, Open drainage, Maxillofacial space infection