Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses
Primary Purpose
Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue
Status
Withdrawn
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Loop drainage
Incision and drainage
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue focused on measuring incision and drainage, loop drainage, soft tissue infection, abscess
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Adults age 18 years or older
- Abscess is considered simple, purulent, and cutaneous
- Abscess is deemed amenable to outpatient drainage
Exclusion Criteria:
- Inability to speak English
- Abscess location of breast or face
- Pilonidal abscesses
- Concurrent use of chemotherapy or steroids
- Allergy to sulfa/trimethoprim or lidocaine
- Inability to provide consent
- Incarcerated patients
- Inability to give a valid contact number or email address
- Presence of multiple abscesses
- Abscess size less than 2 cm
- Pregnant patients
- History of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency
- History of Steven Johnson's Syndrome
- Patients with fever greater than 100.4 Fahrenheit
Sites / Locations
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Experimental
Arm Label
Control
Intervention
Arm Description
Incision and drainage.
Loop drainage.
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Rate of Clinical Cure
Defined as healing of the abscess without the need for further clinical intervention (change in antibiotics, repeat drainage, or admission)
Secondary Outcome Measures
Intra-Procedure Pain Rating
Numeric rating scale of 0-10. A rating of 0 indicates no pain. A rating of 10 indicates the worst pain.
Time to Complete Drainage
Time from initial incision to application of dry dressing
Patient Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Likert scale of 1-5. A rating of 1 indicates poor satisfaction. A rating of 5 indicates the best satisfaction.
Provider Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Likert scale of 1-5. A rating of 1 indicates poor satisfaction. A rating of 5 indicates the best satisfaction.
Recurrence Rate
New lesions requiring drainage
Cosmetic Healing
Visual analog scale of 1-100 mm. A score of 1 indicates poor cosmetic healing. A score of 100 indicates excellent cosmetic healing.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT03911518
First Posted
April 9, 2019
Last Updated
July 1, 2019
Sponsor
Gary Peksa
Collaborators
Brooke Army Medical Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Loyola University, Kaiser Permanente, Stony Brook University
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03911518
Brief Title
Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses
Official Title
Loop vs. Traditional Incision and Drainage: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
July 2019
Overall Recruitment Status
Withdrawn
Why Stopped
Pilot study not necessary as new data has become available.
Study Start Date
July 2019 (Anticipated)
Primary Completion Date
November 2019 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
December 2019 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor-Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Gary Peksa
Collaborators
Brooke Army Medical Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Loyola University, Kaiser Permanente, Stony Brook University
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of loop drainage versus traditional incision and drainage in adult patients presenting to the emergency department.
Detailed Description
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
The usual care in the United States for abscess management is generally incision and drainage. There have been various techniques described for incision and drainage: 1. incision and drainage followed by healing by secondary intention, 2. Incision and drainage followed by primary closure, and 3. Loop drainage (more recently, the topic of this study) with subsequent loop removal and healing by secondary intention. The treatment failure rate for traditional incision and drainage is variable, but can range from 10-30%. Costs associated with treatment failure are between $1,000 and $2,0005. The relatively high failure rate associated with traditional incision and drainage has led to research into less invasive, more effective techniques. In 2010, the loop drainage technique was first described. This technique consists of making 2 small incisions on either end of the abscess cavity followed by pulling a small drain through the incisions and then tying the drain in place. It remains in place and is removed once no further drainage is noticed (usually in 10-14 days). Original studies were primarily done by pediatric surgeons using vessel loops or penrose drains.
In 2014, the concept of using the cuff from the bottom of a sterile glove was introduced. This allows for this technique to easily be used with materials found easily in any emergency department. The amount of research done with this technique on adults is limited. To date, only two studies with a total of 109 patients evaluated loop drainage in adults. One of these studies was retrospective and included only 63 patients. The other prospective study was limited in that it included only 46 patients. Given the demonstration of increased clinical cure rate in pediatric populations and the potential for increased clinical cure rates in adults, more study into this topic is worthwhile to determine the optimal approach to adult subcutaneous abscess drainage.
STUDY DESCRIPTION
This study will be a pilot study and multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating loop drainage compared to conventional incision and drainage in adults older than 18 who have simple, purulent, cutaneous abscesses deemed amenable to outpatient incision and drainage by the attending clinician.
Study participants will be randomized to investigational vs control arm in a 1:1 ratio (Randomization will occur via blocked randomization in blocks of 10). Enrollment will occur primarily when investigators are on shift (convenience sampling). This study will not be blinded, however, observer bias will be reduced by having an investigator blinded to treatment assignment determine the cosmetic healing rate at 90 days.
Participants will receive drainage of their abscess (either conventional or loop). For conventional drainage, the wound will be incised with a #11 blade scalpel along the point of maximal fluctuance, approximately 2-3 cm, and then all loculations bluntly dissected with a set of Kelly clamps. After drainage of pus, the wound will be loosely packed with gauze. Afterwards, a dry dressing will be placed and the patient will be instructed to change the external dressing twice daily or every time it becomes saturated. Patients randomized to standard care will be instructed to remove the packing at 48 hours after incision and drainage.
Loop drainage will occur via 2 small incisions, approximately 2 cm, with the cuff from the base of a sterile glove pulled through and then tied off3. The patient will be instructed to move this cuff back and forth three times daily and cover it with a dry dressing.
Once the abscess drainage procedure is complete, the participant will complete a questionnaire asking about pain during procedure and satisfaction with the procedure. All participants will be discharged with a prescription trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) 160mg/800mg, two tablets by mouth twice daily for ten days. All participants will be instructed to return to the emergency department and contact the PI if they have any worsening signs of infection. Between 10 and 14 days after the initial procedure, patients will follow up in the emergency department for wound recheck. At this visit, the maximal diameter of both erythema and swelling will be measured, and a questionnaire will be administered regarding wound care satisfaction, repeat medical visits, fevers, and any side effects of either the procedure or antibiotic therapy. Loop participants will have the loop removed at the follow up visit. Participants will be called at 30 days for data collection on abscess recurrences. Patient will be asked to return for a wound recheck and submit a photo of the wound, to assess cosmetic appearance of wound at 90 days.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue
Keywords
incision and drainage, loop drainage, soft tissue infection, abscess
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Masking Description
An investigator blinded to treatment assignment determine the cosmetic healing rate at 90 days
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
0 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Control
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Incision and drainage.
Arm Title
Intervention
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Loop drainage.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Loop drainage
Intervention Description
Loop drainage will occur via 2 small incisions, approximately 2 cm, with the cuff from the base of a sterile glove pulled through and then tied off.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Incision and drainage
Intervention Description
The wound will be incised with a #11 blade scalpel along the point of maximal fluctuance, approximately 2-3 cm, and then all loculations bluntly dissected with a set of Kelly clamps. After drainage of pus, the wound will be loosely packed with gauze.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Rate of Clinical Cure
Description
Defined as healing of the abscess without the need for further clinical intervention (change in antibiotics, repeat drainage, or admission)
Time Frame
Days 10-14
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Intra-Procedure Pain Rating
Description
Numeric rating scale of 0-10. A rating of 0 indicates no pain. A rating of 10 indicates the worst pain.
Time Frame
Day 0
Title
Time to Complete Drainage
Description
Time from initial incision to application of dry dressing
Time Frame
Day 0
Title
Patient Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Description
Likert scale of 1-5. A rating of 1 indicates poor satisfaction. A rating of 5 indicates the best satisfaction.
Time Frame
Days 0, 10-14
Title
Provider Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Description
Likert scale of 1-5. A rating of 1 indicates poor satisfaction. A rating of 5 indicates the best satisfaction.
Time Frame
Day 0
Title
Recurrence Rate
Description
New lesions requiring drainage
Time Frame
Day 30
Title
Cosmetic Healing
Description
Visual analog scale of 1-100 mm. A score of 1 indicates poor cosmetic healing. A score of 100 indicates excellent cosmetic healing.
Time Frame
Day 90
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
100 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Adults age 18 years or older
Abscess is considered simple, purulent, and cutaneous
Abscess is deemed amenable to outpatient drainage
Exclusion Criteria:
Inability to speak English
Abscess location of breast or face
Pilonidal abscesses
Concurrent use of chemotherapy or steroids
Allergy to sulfa/trimethoprim or lidocaine
Inability to provide consent
Incarcerated patients
Inability to give a valid contact number or email address
Presence of multiple abscesses
Abscess size less than 2 cm
Pregnant patients
History of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency
History of Steven Johnson's Syndrome
Patients with fever greater than 100.4 Fahrenheit
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Gillian Schmitz, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
25435407
Citation
Ladde JG, Baker S, Rodgers CN, Papa L. The LOOP technique: a novel incision and drainage technique in the treatment of skin abscesses in a pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Feb;33(2):271-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.10.014. Epub 2014 Oct 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24928539
Citation
Thompson DO. Loop drainage of cutaneous abscesses using a modified sterile glove: a promising technique. J Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;47(2):188-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.04.035. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24973422
Citation
Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59(2):e10-52. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu444. Erratum In: Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60(9):1448. Dosage error in article text.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21376200
Citation
McNamara WF, Hartin CW Jr, Escobar MA, Yamout SZ, Lau ST, Lee YH. An alternative to open incision and drainage for community-acquired soft tissue abscesses in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2011 Mar;46(3):502-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.08.019.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27621209
Citation
Gaszynski R, Punch G, Verschuer K. Loop and drain technique for subcutaneous abscess: a safe minimally invasive procedure in an adult population. ANZ J Surg. 2018 Jan;88(1-2):87-90. doi: 10.1111/ans.13709. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28162873
Citation
Ozturan IU, Dogan NO, Karakayali O, Ozbek AE, Yilmaz S, Pekdemir M, Suner S. Comparison of loop and primary incision & drainage techniques in adult patients with cutaneous abscess: A preliminary, randomized clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jun;35(6):830-834. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.01.036. Epub 2017 Jan 22.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28917436
Citation
Gottlieb M, Peksa GD. Comparison of the loop technique with incision and drainage for soft tissue abscesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;36(1):128-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.09.007. Epub 2017 Sep 10.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs