Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Par Samuel Adam Freundlich, Călin-Florin Bochiș et Mihai Juncar.
Contenu en anglais
(1)
Maxillofacial and deep neck space infections require timely source control and exudate evacuation amid growing interest in minimally invasive, biomaterial-based drainage systems. (2)
Ward réunit ces articles dans la même app que vos cartes et vos questions. Un seul compte gratuit pour Ward, Suture, Osler et Prognia.
This narrative review synthesized clinical evidence (2001–2026) on four drainage strategies: incision and drainage (I&D), ultrasound-guided drainage (USD), closed-suction drainage (CSD), and vacuum-sealing/negative-pressure wound therapy (VSD/NPWT), across 44 studies (13,795 patients), emphasizing clinical outcomes and material properties. (3)
The studies differed in infection extent, patient selection, and device configuration, which limits comparison between modalities. Weighted mean length-of-stay values were 6.0 (I&D), 5.8 (USD), 19.8 (CSD), and 13.4 days (VSD); these are descriptive and do not represent treatment effects. Within comparative studies, stays were shorter than in the comparator arm in all five USD studies and in four of the six VSD studies. I&D, the most extensively studied approach, was usually combined with extraction of the causative tooth (80% of patients in the studies that reported it). The USD studies mostly involved localized collections and reported the shortest stays; repeat procedures were reported in 7.1% of patients in the studies that recorded them. CSD was described in three studies (two of which were deep neck series), with conflicting comparative findings; none of them reported drain material or measured blockage. VSD/NPWT studies ranged from single-space abscesses to necrotizing infection, and its pooled stay probably reflects a case mix: in four of the six comparative studies, the stay was noted as shorter with VSD than with conventional drainage, and was longer in two studies. (4)
These descriptive data do not allow the modalities to be ranked. A proposed, clinically unvalidated selection framework is presented. Prospective studies that report device characteristics (material, diameter, pressure, and irrigation) alongside standardized outcomes are needed.
Publié dans Journal of Functional Biomaterials. Le résumé est reproduit tel qu’il a été publié et reste l’œuvre de ses auteurs ; lisez l’article complet à la source.
Prognia référence cet article à des fins de documentation et de formation. Il ne constitue pas un avis médical. Lisez toujours l’original et suivez les recommandations en vigueur et les protocoles locaux avant d’agir.
