A dilemma over percutaneous catheter drainage or percutaneous needle aspiration as first-line management of liver abscess

Atul Kumar, Shivani Sinha, Praveen Singh Baghel
{"title":"A dilemma over percutaneous catheter drainage or percutaneous needle aspiration as first-line management of liver abscess","authors":"Atul Kumar, Shivani Sinha, Praveen Singh Baghel","doi":"10.17511/ijoso.2019.i03.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical presentation and to investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous catheter drainage in comparison to needle aspiration in the treatment of liver abscesses of size more than 5 cm in diameter. Material and Methods: This was a prospective randomized comparative study of 60 patients, presented in outpatient and admitted at the hospital, randomized equally into two groups, percutaneous needle aspiration and percutaneous catheter drainage. The effectiveness of either treatment was measured in terms of duration of hospital stay, days to achieve clinical improvement and total/near total resolution of abscess cavity. Independent ttest was used to analyze these parameters. Results: Percutaneous catheter drainage was successful in all the 30 cases. On the other hand, USG guided percutaneous needle aspiration was successful only in 24 of 30 patients (P=0.005). Out of these 24 patients successfully treated, 6 patients required only one aspiration, 12 required two aspirations, and 6 required three aspirations. The 6 patients who did not show clinical improvement and / or decrease in cavity size despite 3 aspirations were taken as failures. In the PNA group, on comparing the cavity volumes the mean cavity volume in those who were successfully treated was 200 ml which was significantly less than those failing treatment; the mean volume being 400 ml. The patients in PCD group showed earlier clinical improvement (P=0.043) and decrease in abscess cavity volume (P=0.001) as compared to those who underwent PNA. In the present study, the success rate was significantly better in percutaneous catheter drainage group (P=0.005) than needle aspiration. The patients in percuaneous catheter drainage group showed earlier clinical improvement (P=0.043) as compared to those who underwent percutaneous needle aspiration. Conclusion: In the present study, percutaneous catheter drainage is found to be more effective than percutaneous needle aspiration for large liver abscesses of size 5 cm or more in diameter. The clinical improvement is also faster in PCD group than PNA group of the present study.","PeriodicalId":267909,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Update: International Journal of Surgery and Orthopedics","volume":"209 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Update: International Journal of Surgery and Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17511/ijoso.2019.i03.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical presentation and to investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous catheter drainage in comparison to needle aspiration in the treatment of liver abscesses of size more than 5 cm in diameter. Material and Methods: This was a prospective randomized comparative study of 60 patients, presented in outpatient and admitted at the hospital, randomized equally into two groups, percutaneous needle aspiration and percutaneous catheter drainage. The effectiveness of either treatment was measured in terms of duration of hospital stay, days to achieve clinical improvement and total/near total resolution of abscess cavity. Independent ttest was used to analyze these parameters. Results: Percutaneous catheter drainage was successful in all the 30 cases. On the other hand, USG guided percutaneous needle aspiration was successful only in 24 of 30 patients (P=0.005). Out of these 24 patients successfully treated, 6 patients required only one aspiration, 12 required two aspirations, and 6 required three aspirations. The 6 patients who did not show clinical improvement and / or decrease in cavity size despite 3 aspirations were taken as failures. In the PNA group, on comparing the cavity volumes the mean cavity volume in those who were successfully treated was 200 ml which was significantly less than those failing treatment; the mean volume being 400 ml. The patients in PCD group showed earlier clinical improvement (P=0.043) and decrease in abscess cavity volume (P=0.001) as compared to those who underwent PNA. In the present study, the success rate was significantly better in percutaneous catheter drainage group (P=0.005) than needle aspiration. The patients in percuaneous catheter drainage group showed earlier clinical improvement (P=0.043) as compared to those who underwent percutaneous needle aspiration. Conclusion: In the present study, percutaneous catheter drainage is found to be more effective than percutaneous needle aspiration for large liver abscesses of size 5 cm or more in diameter. The clinical improvement is also faster in PCD group than PNA group of the present study.
肝脓肿的一线治疗是经皮导管引流还是经皮针抽吸
背景:本研究的目的是评估临床表现,并探讨经皮导管引流与针吸治疗直径大于5cm的肝脓肿的有效性。材料和方法:这是一项前瞻性随机比较研究,60例患者,门诊和住院,随机分为两组,经皮穿刺和经皮导管引流。两种治疗方法的有效性是根据住院时间、达到临床改善的天数和脓肿腔的完全/接近完全解决来衡量的。采用独立检验方法对这些参数进行分析。结果:30例患者经皮置管引流均成功。另一方面,30例患者中USG引导下的经皮穿刺只有24例成功(P=0.005)。在成功治疗的24例患者中,6例只需一次吸痰,12例需要两次吸痰,6例需要三次吸痰。6例患者虽有3次拔牙,但未见临床改善和/或腔体缩小,均视为失败。PNA组比较空腔体积,治疗成功组平均空腔体积为200 ml,明显小于治疗失败组;与PNA组相比,PCD组患者的临床改善较早(P=0.043),脓肿腔体积减小(P=0.001)。在本研究中,经皮导管引流组的成功率明显优于针吸组(P=0.005)。经皮导管引流组患者的临床改善较经皮针吸组更早(P=0.043)。结论:本研究发现,对于直径大于等于5cm的肝脓肿,经皮置管引流比经皮穿刺引流更有效。PCD组的临床改善也快于本研究的PNA组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信