Search

Cervicofacial infections carry significant morbidity. Patients present on a broad spectrum of severity, with some requiring outpatient management and others admission to higher level care. Recognition of risk factors is helpful in decision making regarding the need for admission to higher level care. Prospective data were captured on 1002 patients in 25 centres across 17 regions of the United Kingdom (UK) by the Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC). Patients admitted to critical care were compared with those who received ward-level care. Multivariate and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to identify predictors for critical care admission. Our results show that the best predictor for critical care admission is the presence of three or more features of airway compromise (AUC 0.779), followed by C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L (OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.59 to 4.58; p < 0.005), submandibular space involvement (OR 3.82; 95% CI 1.870 to 7.81; p = 0.003), white cell count (WCC) >12 × 109/ dl (1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10; p = 0.03), and positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (OR 2.78; CI 1.35 to 5.80; p = 0.006). Admission to critical care is multifactorial, however, the presence of three or more features of airway compromise is the best predictor. Awareness of this alongside other key clinical findings in cervicofacial infections may allow for the early recognition of patients who may require escalation to critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assess the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on UK oral and maxillofacial (OMF) trauma services and patient treatment during the first wave of the pandemic. From 1 April 2020 until 31 July 2020, OMF surgery units in the UK were invited to prospectively record all patients presenting with OMF trauma. Information included clinical presentation, mechanism of injury, how it was managed, and whether or not treatment included surgery. Participants were also asked to compare the patient's care with the treatment that would normally have been given before the crisis. Twenty-nine units across the UK contributed with 2,229 entries. The most common aetiology was mechanical fall (39%). The most common injuries were soft tissue wounds (52%) and, for hard tissues, mandibular fractures (13%). Of 876 facial fractures, 79 patients' treatment differed from what would have been normal pre-COVID, and 33 had their treatment deferred. Therefore the care of 112 (14%) patients was at variance with normal practice because of COVID restrictions. The pattern of OMFS injuries changed during the first COVID-19 lockdown. For the majority, best practice and delivery of quality trauma care continued despite the on-going operational challenges, and only a small proportion of patients had changes to their treatment. The lessons learnt from the first wave, combined with adequate resources and preoperative testing of patients, should allow those facial injuries in the second wave to receive best-practice care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 25 March 2020, the Chief Dental Officer issued national guidance restricting the provision of all routine, non-urgent dental services in response to the spread of COVID-19. We analysed odontogenic cervicofacial infections (CFI) presenting to oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) departments during the first wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. From 1 April 2020 until 31 July 2020 a database was used to prospectively collect records for all patients with CFI who presented to oral and maxillofacial teams. Information gathered included clinical presentation, location/origin of infection, and how this was managed. The OMFS units were asked to compare the patient's care with the treatment that would usually have been given prior to the crisis. A total of 32 OMFS units recorded 1381 cases of CFI in the UK. Most of the infections were referred via the emergency department (74%). Lower first or second molars were the most common origin, contributing 40% of CFI. Collaborators reported that patients' treatments were modified as a response to COVID in 20% of cases, the most frequently cited reason being the application of COVID-19 hospital policy (85%). The impact of the first wave of COVID modified the management of a significant number of patients presenting with CFI, and there was a proactive move to avoid general anaesthetics where possible. Some patients who presented to secondary care were given no treatment, suggesting they could have been managed in primary dental care if this had been available. We recommend that OMFS units and urgent dental care centres (UDCCs) build strong communication links not only to provide the best possible patient care, but to minimise COVID exposure and the strain on emergency departments during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervicofacial infection (CFI) is a common presentation to the Oral and Maxillofacial (OMFS) department and accounts for significant emergency activity. The current study aims to understand the aetiology, management, and clinical features of patients hospitalised with CFI. Our study included all patients admitted for management of CFI from May to October 2017 at 25 OMFS units across 17 UK regions. Data were collected prospectively and included age, comorbidities, prior treatment received, markers of sepsis, and presenting clinical features. One thousand and two (1002) admissions were recorded; 546 (54.5%) were male. Median (range) age was 34 (1–94) years. The most common presenting complaints were trismus (46%) and dysphagia (27%). Airway compromise was present in 1.7% of cases. Odontogenic infection accounted for 822/1002 (82%) admissions. Of those with an infection of odontogenic origin, 453/822 (55.1%) had received previous treatment. Two-thirds of those who had received treatment were managed by antibiotics alone (300/453, 66.2%). Patients met criteria for sepsis in 437/1002 (43.6%) of CFI, and in 374/822 (45.5%) of odontogenic infections. This is the largest study worldwide of patients requiring inpatient management for CFI. Infection due to odontogenic origin is the most frequent reason for admission and nearly half do not seek treatment before presentation. Patients with CFI often present late in their disease and frequently meet criteria for sepsis, requiring timely and aggressive treatment to ensure optimum outcomes. Trismus is an emerging dominant feature with all the implications related to the anaesthetic management of these patients. Knowledge of these factors has implications for the referrer, triage, the emergency department, the anaesthetic team, and members of the OMFS team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of corticosteroids in the management of cervicofacial infections continues to cause controversy. Systemic anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects that reduce swelling and improve symptoms in the head and neck may make these agents an effective addition to the antibiotics used and to surgical management, although this same effect may dull the physiological response to infection, and allow infections to progress. We have systematically reviewed the evidence for the use of corticosteroids in common cervicofacial infections following the PRISMA guidelines. MeSH terms included "head", "neck", "infection", and "glucocorticoid". In total, 31 papers were identified. Eight reported the use of corticosteroids for peritonsillar abscess (PTA), 10 for pharyngitis, four for deep neck space infection (DNSI), four for periorbital cellulitis, and five for supraglottitis. Whilst there is an established evidence base for their use in the treatment of PTA and pharyngitis, other indications need further study, and we highlight the potential pitfalls. The evidence suggests that the use of adjunctive, short-term, high-dose corticosteroids in cervicofacial infections may be safe and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervicofacial infections are common emergency presentations to maxillofacial departments in the UK, there is no consensus about their management and, in particular, the role of corticosteroids is not clear. Our aim was to find out the current practice of UK maxillofacial surgeons in managing these infections using a multicentre questionnaire study. The questionnaire was designed, piloted, and revised before distribution, and questions were asked to assess preoperative, operative, and postoperative management. It was distributed to maxillofacial surgeons throughout the UK through the Maxillofacial Research Trainee Collaborative (MTReC) network, and at the 2016 British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) Junior Trainees Group conference. A total of 350 questionnaires were distributed to 17 maxillofacial units. Eighty-six questionnaires were distributed at the BAOMS Junior Trainee conference. An overall response rate of 92% (n = 324) was achieved. The results showed that there were important differences in reported practice between and within maxillofacial units in the UK in managing these infections. The antibiotic regimens and use of steroids varied widely. Twenty-three per cent of respondents had to wait over 24 hours for access to emergency theatres. However, these results provide no hard evidence for or against the use of corticosteroids in cervicofacial infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]