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

Abstract

ObjectivesTo 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).MethodsPatients 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.ResultsEighty‐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).ConclusionsVAC 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.