A Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Loop Drainage Technique Versus Standard Incision and Drainage in the Treatment of Skin Abscesses

Abstract

After reading the article, participants should be able to compare loop drainage vs drainage and packing for skin abscesses. Activity Disclosures This activity received no commercial support. CME Editor Corey Heitz discloses no relevant financial relationships. This activity underwent peer review in line with standards of editorial integrity and publication ethics. Conflicts of interest have been identified and resolved in accordance with John Wiley and Sons, Inc.'s Policy on Activity Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Accreditation John Wiley and Sons, Inc. is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit TM. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing medical education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board. This activity is designed to be completed within 1 hour. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity during the valid credit period, which is up to two years from initial publication. Additionally, up to 3 attempts and a score of 70% or better is needed to pass the post test.

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

“…In one instance, an abstract was replaced with the corresponding full-text publication, which had not been available in print at the time of the search. 12 Eight studies, comprising 910 total participants, were selected for final analysis (Table 1). Studies were published between 2011 and 2020 with individual population sizes ranging from 33 to 219.…”

“…[11][12][13][14][15] Four studies were conducted in adult patients, 11,13,15,23 three were performed in pediatric patients, 10,14,22 and one was performed in a mixed adult and pediatric population. 12 Only five studies described packing in the CID group. Four studies used a ribbon or iodoform gauze, 12,14,15,23 while one study did not pack the abscesses after the CID procedure.…”

“…12 Only five studies described packing in the CID group. Four studies used a ribbon or iodoform gauze, 12,14,15,23 while one study did not pack the abscesses after the CID procedure. 11 The randomized controlled trials were overall fair quality as determined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool ( Table 2).…”

“…13 All five studies were at an unclear risk of bias for participants and personnel, although the nature of the intervention would make blinding of either party not possible. [11][12][13][14][15] Four studies were at unclear risk of bias for blinding of the outcome assessor. [11][12][13][14] No studies were at high risk of bias for any outcomes.…”

“…11 Several recent large randomized controlled trials have been published prompting the need for an updated review. [12][13][14][15] This review will serve to guide clinical management and future research in this arena. The primary objective of this review is to compare the CID versus LDT with regard to treatment failures.…”