Gottlieb Michael, Peksa Gary D
Department of Emergency Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;36(1):128-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.09.007. Epub 2017 Sep 10.
Skin and soft tissue infections are a common presentation to the emergency department. Traditional management of abscesses involves a linear incision through the center of the abscess with packing placed. The loop drainage technique (LDT) is an alternate approach that may reduce pain and scarring, as well as decrease the number of follow up visits needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the LDT with conventional incision and drainage (CID) in the treatment of soft tissue abscesses.
PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of selected articles were assessed for all retrospective, prospective, or randomized controlled trials comparing the LDT to CID with an outcome of treatment failure, as defined by the individual study. Data were double extracted into a predefined worksheet and quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were summarized and a meta-analysis was performed with subgroup analyses by adult versus pediatric age groups.
This systematic review identified four studies comprising 470 total patients. Overall, the CID technique failed in 25 of 265 cases (9.43%). The LDT failed in 8 of 195 cases (4.10%). There was an odds ratio of 2.63 (95% CI 1.04 to 6.63) in favor of higher failures in the CID group. Funnel plot analysis demonstrated no evidence of publication bias. Subgroups analysis by age group demonstrated improved efficacy of the LDT in pediatric patients, but the adult subgroup did not reach statistical significance.
The existing literature suggests that LDT is associated with a lower failure rate than CID. However, the data is limited by small sample sizes and predominantly retrospective study designs. Given the potential for less pain, decreased scarring, and lower associated healthcare costs, this technique should be considered for the treatment of skin and soft tissue abscesses in the ED setting, but further studies are needed.
皮肤和软组织感染是急诊科常见的病症。传统的脓肿处理方法是在脓肿中心做直线切口并放置引流条。环形引流技术(LDT)是一种替代方法,可能会减轻疼痛和瘢痕形成,同时减少所需的随访次数。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较LDT与传统切开引流术(CID)治疗软组织脓肿的疗效。
检索了PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库以及所选文章的参考文献,纳入所有比较LDT与CID治疗失败结局(由各研究定义)的回顾性、前瞻性或随机对照试验。数据被双重录入预定义的工作表,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行质量分析。数据进行汇总,并按成人与儿童年龄组进行亚组分析的荟萃分析。
本系统评价纳入了四项研究,共470例患者。总体而言,CID技术在265例中有25例失败(9.43%)。LDT在195例中有8例失败(4.10%)。CID组失败率较高的优势比为2.63(95%CI 1.04至6.63)。漏斗图分析未显示发表偏倚的证据。按年龄组进行的亚组分析表明,LDT在儿科患者中疗效更佳,但成人亚组未达到统计学显著性。
现有文献表明,LDT的失败率低于CID。然而,数据受样本量小和主要为回顾性研究设计的限制。鉴于其可能减轻疼痛、减少瘢痕形成并降低相关医疗成本,在急诊科环境中治疗皮肤和软组织脓肿时应考虑采用该技术,但仍需进一步研究。