Background We aimed to compare multifunctional irrigation‐assisted vacuum drainage (MIVD), vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) and the Penrose drain in treating severe multi‐space deep fascial infection (DFI) in head and neck. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 113 patients who had suffered from severe multi‐space DFI in head and neck and underwent surgical treatment. Patients were divided into the MIVD group, the VSD group, and the Penrose group according to their treatment. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcome data regarding infection control, clinicians’ workload, surgical procedure required, and cost were analyzed. Results Duration of antibiotic administration was significantly shorter using MIVD and VSD than Penrose drains (p = 0.002 with MIVD, p = 0.008 with VSD). Hospital stay in the MIVD group was shorter than the Penrose group (p = 0.034). Compared to the other two groups, more times of manual irrigation were needed in higher frequency in the Penrose group (p < 0.001). Longer Incision and more surgical operation were required in the VSD group than the other two groups (p < 0.001). The treatment cost in the VSD group was higher than the MIVD group (p = 0.045) and the Penrose group (p < 0.001). Conclusions In the treatment of severe multi‐space DFI in head and neck, MIVD and VSD are superior to the Penrose drain in infection control and reduction in clinicians’ workload. Meanwhile, MIVD, with fewer surgical procedures required and less cost, seems to be a more promising method than VSD.

Odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the head and neck is a common potentially fatal clinical problem. Traditional drainage method is considered laborious and gravity-dependent. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of a modified multifunctional irrigation-assisted vacuum drainage (MIVD) by comparing it with the traditional drainage method in the treatment of odontogenic deep fascial infection. Patients and Methods: Patients diagnosed with odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China between March 2018 and March 2021 were studied. We divided the patients into two groups based on the drainage method they received: patients with the MIVD device were included in the MIVD group, patients with traditional drainage were included in the traditional group. Data were collected retrospectively including baseline characteristics and treatment outcome variables. Results: A total of 65 patients were included. All the patients were eventually cured. There were no significant differences in age, gender, diabetes, end stage renal disease, autoimmune diseases, other systemic diseases, tobacco use, number of the infected spaces, preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein between the two groups. The number and frequency of manual irrigation by clinicians (MIC), time required for white blood cell count to return to normal levels (TWBC), time required for C-reactive protein to return to normal levels (TCRP), the length of hospitalization and the length and total cost of antibiotics use were significantly less in the MIVD group. There was no significant difference in the cost of hospitalization between the 2 groups. Conclusion:The MIVD device significantly reduced the number and frequency of MIC, TWBC, TCRP, the length of hospitalization and the length and total cost of antibiotics use in comparison with the traditional drainage method. It provided a favorable treatment method for patients with odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the head and neck.

Background: Odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the head and neck is a common clinical problem which requires emergency surgery. Traditional drainage method is considered laborious and gravity-dependent. We aimed in this study to promote a modified multifunctional irrigation-assisted vacuum drainage (MIVD) and evaluate the clinical effect of it in the treatment of odontogenic deep fascial infection.Methods: Patients diagnosed with odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China between March 2018 and March 2021 were studied. We divided the patients into two groups based on the drainage method they received: patients with the MIVD device were included in the MIVD group, patients with traditional drainage were included in the traditional group. Data was collected retrospectively including baseline characteristics and treatment outcome variables. Pearson Chi-square test and the Student t-test were used in statistical analyses. Statistical difference was considered significant when p<0.05.Results: A total of 65 patients were included. All the patients were eventually cured. There were no significant differences in age, gender, systemic diseases, history of diabetes, tobacco use, number of the infected spaces, preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein between the two groups (p>0.05). The number and frequency of manual irrigation by clinicians (MIC), time required for white blood cell count to return to normal levels (TWBC), time required for C-reactive protein to return to normal levels (TCRP), the length of hospitalization and the length and total cost of antibiotics use were significantly less in the MIVD group than those in the traditional group (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the cost of hospitalization between the 2 groups (p>0.05).Conclusions: The MIVD device significantly reduced the number and frequency of MIC, TWBC, TCRP, the length of hospitalization and the length and total cost of antibiotics use in comparison with the traditional drainage method. It provided a favorable treatment method for patients with odontogenic deep fascial space infection in the head and neck.