Comparative study conventional incision and drainage versus primary closure with negative suction drainage of soft tissue abscess
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20243706Keywords:
Abscess, Incision and drainage, Negative suction drain, Primary closure, Scar, Wound healingAbstract
Background: An abscess refers to a confined collection of pus within tissues, organs, or specific body spaces, arising from tissue breakdown within the dermal and deeper skin layers. It is a hallmark of infection, identified as an inflammatory lesion containing purulent material, which commonly occurs as a response to a range of biological, chemical, or physical injuries to host tissues. The typical signs of an acute abscess include redness, tenderness, warmth, and swelling, often presenting a fluid-like consistency when pressed. While the overlying epidermis remains intact, the dermis hosts inflammatory cells and degraded tissue. Distinguishing an abscess from similar conditions is essential; erysipelas affects the upper dermis, while cellulitis involves loose connective tissue beneath the dermis, often mimicking an abscess.
Methods: This comparative hospital-based study evaluated wound healing time and scarring between two treatment approaches: conventional incision and drainage versus primary closure with a negative suction drain. Fifty patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group A: 25 patients treated with conventional incision and drainage; Group B: 25 patients receiving primary closure with suction drainage following incision and drainage.
Results: Primary closure with suction drainage showed faster wound healing, reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and a lower recurrence rate compared to the conventional approach.
Conclusions: Incorporating primary closure with suction drainage is advantageous over traditional methods, suggesting a need for wider adoption among surgeons as it provides faster recovery, less pain, and improved cosmetic outcomes.
Metrics
References
Edino ST, Ihezue CH, Obekpa PO. The outcome of primary closure of incised acute soft tissue abscesses. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2001;8(1):326.
Lamont P. Surgical Infection. In: Williams NS, Bulstrode C, O'connell P. Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery. 26th ed. CRC, London; 2013:53-55.
Thomas W. Basic surgical skills and anastomosis. In: Williams NS, Bulstrode C, O'connell P. Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery. 26th ed. CRC, London; 2013:53-55.
Kanat Z, Sözen S. Skin Abscess. IntechOpen; 2023.
Bowman JK. Abscess incision and drainage. Prim Care: Clin Off Pract. 2022;49:1.
Gajiwala KJ. Puncture, drainage, and irrigation: Is that enough for treating an abscess? Indian J Plastic Surg. 2006;39(2):189-95.
Abraham N, Doudle M, Carson P. Open versus closed surgical treatment of abscesses: A controlled clinical trial. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67(4):173-6.
Ellis M. Incision and primary suture of abscesses of the anal region. Proc R Soc Med. 1960;53:652-3.
Singh A, Singh G, Sidhu DS, Bhalla M. Conventional incision and drainage versus incision and drainage with primary closure in acute abscess: a prospective study. Int Surg J. 2018;5(1):281-5.
Singer AJ, Taira BR, Chale S, Bhat R, Kennedy D, Schmitz G. Primary versus secondary closure of cutaneous abscesses in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Medi. 2013;20(1):27-32.
Dubey V, Choudhary SK. Incision and drainage versus incision and drainage with primary closure and use of closed suction drain in acute abscesses. Wounds. 2013;25(3):58-60.
Abraham N, Doudle M, Carson P. Open versus closed surgical treatment of abscesses: A controlled clinical trial. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67(4):173-6.
Parakh AM, Diwakar MK. Assessment of open versus closed modalities of breast abscess treatments: A cross-sectional comparative study. Int Surg J. 2018;5(6):2142-47.
Raju SRH. Analytical study of drainage of breast abscess by open drainage with primary suturing with negative suction drain and conventional incision and drainage. Int J Surg Sci. 2019;3(3):397-99.