Comparison of the Loop Technique With Incision and Drainage for Skin and Soft Tissue Abscesses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous abscesses are common presentations to the emergency department. While the primary treatment for most abscesses is conventional incision and drainage (CID), this is painful and can lead to multiple return visits. The loop drainage technique (LDT) has been proposed as an alternate, less-invasive approach to abscess management. The primary outcome of this study was to compare LDT with CID for skin and soft tissue abscesses.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of selected articles were assessed for all retrospective, prospective observational, and randomized controlled trials comparing treatment failures between LDT and CID among patients with skin and soft tissue abscesses. Data were dual extracted into a predefined worksheet and quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were summarized and presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed for adult and pediatric patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1,374 studies were identified with eight studies (n = 910 patients) selected for inclusion. Overall, CID failed in 69 of 487 patients (14.17%), while LDT failed in 35 of 423 patients (8.27%). There was an OR of 2.02 (95% CI = 1.29 to 3.18) in favor of higher failures in the CID group. This finding remained consistent with only randomized controlled trials (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.86), but no difference was identified in the adult or pediatric subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The LDT was associated with reduced treatment failures when compared with CID. Future studies should further assess the impact on pain, cosmetic outcomes, and health care costs.