Outcomes in Conservative Versus Surgical Treatments in Ludwig’s Angina Cases: A Comparative Study: Conservative Versus Surgical Outcomes in Ludwig’s Angina

Fatima Imam; Muhammad Shahzad; Zaheer Hussain Chachar; Maya Madhuri; Uzma Bashir; Junaid Naveed Gaju; Salman Shams

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v6i5.2870

Authors

Fatima Imam Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Muhammad Shahzad Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Zaheer Hussain Chachar Department of Periodontology, Altamash Institute of Dental Medicine, Karachi, Pakistan
Maya Madhuri Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Muhammad Dental College Mirpurkhas, Pakistan
Uzma Bashir Department of Prosthodontics, Muhammad Dental College, Mirpurkhas, Pakistan
Junaid Naveed Gaju Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Salman Shams Department of Oral Medicine, Liaquat University Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v6i5.2870

Keywords:

Ludwig’s Angina, Conservative Treatment, Surgical Intervention, Airway Compromise

Abstract

Rapid airway impairment brought on by Ludwig's angina may require careful antimicrobial treatment or surgery. Objective: To compare the airway compromise and hospital stay in conservative versus surgical approach in cases with Ludwig's Angina. Methods: This experiment was conducted at Liaquat University using a non-probability consecutive sampling technique to recruit 76 patients, aged 18 to 40, diagnosed with early-stage Ludwig’s angina without airway obstruction. Quasi-experimental study. There were 38 patients in each group, and participants were randomized to either the surgery group or the conservative treatment group. Outcomes such as airway compromise and length of hospital stay were recorded and compared between groups using t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests. Findings: The conservative group's mean age was 30.58 ± 5.52 years, while the surgical group's was 31.34 ± 5.92 years. There were 11 females (28.95%) and 27 males (71.05%) in the conservative group and 8 females (21.05%) and 30 males (78.95%) in the surgical group. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the length of hospital stay between the surgical group (6.97 ± 1.10 days) and the conservative group (5.05 ± 0.89 days). Five patients (13.16%) in the surgical group and three patients (7.89%) in the conservative group experienced airway impairment; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.706). Conclusion: Conservative treatment, being less invasive, can be effective in mild cases, leading to shorter hospital stays and a reduced risk of airway compromise.

References

Satish V, Satheesh C, Abraham PD, Padmashini G, Sinouvassane D, Wong LS et al. Case Report: Ludwig's angina-'The Dangerous Space'. F1000Research. 2024 Jun; 11: 1511. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.127242.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127242.2

Sahoo NK, Thakral A, Pandey S, Vaswani H, Vashisht S, Maheshwari I. Incidence of Mortality and Its Relation to Comorbidity in Ludwig's Angina: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2024 Jun; 23(3): 581-8. doi: 10.1007/s12663-024-02116-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02116-5

Owobu T, Ekuase E, Azah OO, Adamu SS, Bamgbose BO. Ludwig's angina-an emergency complication arising from delayed dental treatment: The experience in a Nigerian tertiary institution. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science. 2020 Aug; 5(2): 129-33. doi: 10.15562/jdmfs.v5i2.1082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v5i2.1082

Gunawan F and Ferriastuti W. Ludwig's angina: An alarming radiology challenge. Radiology Case Reports. 2022 Sep; 17(9): 3103-6. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2022.05.085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2022.05.085

Tami A, Othman S, Sudhakar A, McKinnon BJ. Ludwig's angina and steroid use: a narrative review. American Journal of Otolaryngology. 2020 May ;41(3): 102411. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102411

Tu A, Gilbert JD, Byard RW. Ludwig angina and sudden death. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. 2021 Sep; 17(3): 506-9. doi: 10.1007/s12024-020-00350-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-020-00350-0

Nguyen CD, Pham HV, Tran AT, Tran PTA, Van Dao H, Nguyen KM et al. Predicting factors for patients with Ludwig's angina have been treated at Viet Duc University hospital. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews. 2022; 12(2): 069-78. doi: 10.30574/gscarr.2022.12.2.0216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2022.12.2.0216

Vallée M, Gaborit B, Meyer J, Malard O, Boutoille D, Raffi F et al. Ludwig's angina: A diagnostic and surgical priority. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020 Apr; 93: 160-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.028

Saifeldeen K and Evans R. Ludwig's angina. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2004 Mar; 21(2): 242-3. doi: 10.1136/emj.2003.012336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2003.012336

Kovalev V. A severe case of Ludwig's angina with a complicated clinical course. Cureus. 2020 Apr; 12(4). doi: 10.7759/cureus.7695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7695

Parmar BD, Joshi KJ, Modi AD, Dave GP, Desai RS, Parmar BD et al. Management of Ludwig's angina at a tertiary care hospital in Western region of India. Cureus. 2022 Mar; 14(3). doi: 10.7759/cureus.23311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23311

Edetanlen BE and Saheeb BD. Comparison of outcomes in conservative versus surgical treatments for Ludwig's angina. Medical Principles and Practice. 2018 Jun; 27(4): 362-6. doi: 10.1159/000490740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000490740

Maghaireh GA, Alzraikat H, Taha NA. Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Attitude toward improving Dental Esthetics among Patients attending a Dental Teaching Center. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2016 Jan; 17(1): 16-21. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1796

Pak S, Cha D, Meyer C, Dee C, Fershko A. Ludwig's angina. Cureus. 2017 Aug; 9(8). doi: 10.7759/cureus.1588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1588

Parker E and Mortimore G. Ludwig's angina: a multidisciplinary concern. British Journal of Nursing. 2019 May; 28(9): 547-51. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2019.28.9.547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2019.28.9.547

Urias D, Kim S, Meenan D, Carney W. Successful Management of Ludwig's Angina Only to Encounter Perforated Viscus during Recovery. The American Surgeon. 2018 Sep; 84(9): E381-2. doi: 10.1177/000313481808400914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481808400914

Chou YK, Lee CY, Chao HH. An upper airway obstruction emergency: Ludwig angina. Pediatric Emergency Care. 2007 Dec; 23(12): 892-6. doi: 10.1097/pec.0b013e31815c9d4a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pec.0b013e31815c9d4a

Hammer J. Short case presentation. Subglottal foreign body. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. 2004 Mar; 5(1): 90-2. doi: 10.1542/pir.21-3-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.21-3-86

Rao K, Navneeth T, Vivek S, Rathod S. Comparative study of the outcome of surgical decompression in Ludwig's angina by conventional skin incision versus multiple interrupted skin incisions. International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head Neck Surgery. 2020 Nov; 6: 2054-7. doi: 10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20204631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20204631

Bridwell R, Gottlieb M, Koyfman A, Long B. Diagnosis and management of Ludwig's angina: An evidence-based review. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021 Mar; 41: 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.12.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.12.030