Packing versus mushroom catheters following incision and drainage in anorectal abscess
- 9 Downloads
Management of anorectal abscess is traditionally by incision and drainage with packing. This study assessed the use of mushroom catheters compared with packing of anorectal abscess after incision and drainage in adults. Placement of a mushroom catheter to allow ongoing drainage of the cavity may have advantages by eliminating the need for painful dressing changes.
This was a retrospective observational study. Following ethical approval, a chart review of 167 patients treated for anorectal abscess with either packing or mushroom catheter at Cork University Hospital from 2010 to 2015 was performed. Treatment decision was based on individual surgeon preference. Outcome measures included recurrence and fistula development. Telephone follow-up was also performed to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L).
One hundred and twenty-nine patients were treated with incision and drainage with packing, and 38 patients were treated with mushroom catheter. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence (p = 0.691) or fistula development (p = 0.299) between the groups. Twenty-three patients had Crohn’s disease, 17 patients had diabetes and 66 patients were smokers. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence or fistula development between the treatment groups in Crohn’s (p = 0.493), diabetics (p = 0.949) and smokers (p = 0.275). On average, patients treated with mushroom catheter reported a statistically significant higher satisfaction score (9.2 ± 1.0) than patients treated with packing (7.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.013).
Mushroom catheter drainage of anorectal abscesses is a safe alternative to traditional packing and results in higher patient satisfaction. This study provides a rationale for a future randomised controlled trial.
KeywordsAnorectal abscess Incision and drainage Mushroom catheter Packing Perianal abscess
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval was obtained from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospital (CREC). This was a retrospective chart review with telephone follow-up of patients following informed consent. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors as the only interventions performed were as part of routine care and not altered by the study.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants who participated in telephone follow-up included in the study.
- 11.Akkapulu N, Dere Ö, Zaim G, Soy HE, Özmen T, Doğrul AB (2014) A retrospective analysis of 93 cases with anorectal abscess in a rural state hospital. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 31(1):5–8Google Scholar
- 14.Kyle S, Isbister WH (1990) Management of anorectal abscesses: comparison between traditional incision and packing and de Pezzer catheter drainage. Aust N Z J Surg 60(2):129–131Google Scholar
- 18.Pang LM, Kong FB, Wang XT, Li DG, Li YB, Sun PL, Huang HY, Liu CQ, Wei M (2015) Efficacy of vacuum sealing drainage after incision of perianal abscess: preliminary experience. Am Surg 81(11):E379–E382Google Scholar
- 22.Naeem M, Rahimnajjad MK, Rahimnajjad NA, Ahmed QJ, Fazel PA, Owais M (2012) Comparison of incision and drainage against needle aspiration for the treatment of breastabscess. Am Surg 78(11):1224–1227Google Scholar
- 24.Baker J, Windsor J (2007) Management of adult superficial acute abscesses in a tertiary hospital: time for incisive action. N Z Med J 122(1295):37–46Google Scholar
- 25.Sözener U, Gedik E, Kessaf Aslar A, Ergun H, Halil Elhan A, Memikoğlu O, Bulent Erkek A, Ayhan Kuzu M (2011) Does adjuvant antibiotic treatment after drainage of anorectal abscess prevent development of anal fistulas? A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum 54(8):923–929. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31821cc1f9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar