Clinical analysis of 61 cases of deep neck infection
10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20190911-00574
- VernacularTitle:颈深部感染61例临床治疗经验分析
- Author:
Yan WANG
1
;
Xiumei CHEN
;
Hua ZHANG
;
Dajian LI
;
Qiang WANG
;
Xicheng SONG
Author Information
1. 烟台毓璜顶医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科，青岛大学，烟台 264000
- Keywords:
Deep neck;
Infection;
Neck abscess;
Fasciitis, necrotizing;
Drainage
- From:
Chinese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery
2020;55(4):358-362
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the clinical experience in care for deep neck infection (DNI) and to analyze the factors influencing surgical treatment outcome.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 61 patients with DNI admitted to the Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery of Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital from March 2013 to April 2019, including 33 males and 28 females, aged from 6 months to 81 years with a median age of 49 years. Patients were divided into two groups, 31 cases with localized infection (neck abscess) in Group A and 30 cases with diffuse infection (neck necrotizing fasciitis) in Group B. Patients in two groups were compared for sex, age, hospital stay, diabetes, tracheostomy, drainage methods, mediastinal infection, and pathogenic bacteria. The influence of different drainage methods on hospital stay in Group A was analyzed. SPSS 25.0 software was used for statistical analysis.Results:Of the 61 patients, 45 patients underwent surgical incision and drainage (21 cases in Group A and 24 cases in Group B), 23 patients underwent ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (UG-FNA) and catheter drainage (10 cases in Group A and 13 cases in Group B), and 7 patients in Group B were treated with both drainage methods. Pathogens were cultured in 31 cases (50.82%). There were significant differences in hospital stay, drainage method and mediastinal infection (χ 2 values were 26.890, 8.687 and 6.035, respectively, P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in sex, age, diabetes, tracheotomy and pathogenic bacteria (χ 2 values were 0.157, 3.685, 2.434, 3.631 and 0.807, respectively, P>0.05) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in hospital stay between two drainage methods in patients in Group A (χ 2=1.560, P>0.05). Conclusions:There were significant differences in hospital stay, drainage method and mediastinal infection between patients with localized infection and diffuse infection, as diffuse infection is often associated with serious complications. UG-FNA and catheter drainage is an optional method for the treatment of localized infection, with minimal invasion and no influence on hospital stay.
