Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous TissueNCT03911518
Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses
A study testing Loop drainage and Incision and drainage in people with Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue, run by Gary Peksa.
Trial summary
This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of loop drainage versus traditional incision and drainage in adult patients presenting to the emergency department. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 100 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue
- What is being tested?
- Loop drainage and Incision and drainage
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jul 2019to Dec 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 100 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults age 18 years or older
- Abscess is considered simple, purulent, and cutaneous
- Abscess is deemed amenable to outpatient drainage
Who cannot join
- 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
Show all 14Show fewer
- 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
About this study
Official title: Loop vs. Traditional Incision and Drainage: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of loop drainage versus traditional incision and drainage in adult patients presenting to the emergency department.
Read the 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.
- Being tested
- Loop drainage, Incision and drainage
- Keywords
- incision and drainage, loop drainage, soft tissue infection, abscess
- Medical subject headings
- Surgical Wound, Soft Tissue Infections, Abscess
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Loop drainageProcedure or surgery
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.
Incision and drainageProcedure or surgery
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Active comparator | Incision and drainage. Receives: Procedure: Incision and drainage |
| Intervention | Experimental | Loop drainage. Receives: Procedure: Loop drainage |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Rate of Clinical Cure
Defined as healing of the abscess without the need for further clinical intervention (change in antibiotics, repeat drainage, or admission)
Measured: Days 10-14
Secondary outcomes (6)
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.
Measured: Day 0
Time to Complete Drainage
Time from initial incision to application of dry dressing
Measured: Day 0
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.
Measured: Days 0, 10-14
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.
Measured: Day 0
Recurrence Rate
New lesions requiring drainage
Measured: Day 30
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.
Measured: Day 90
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Apr 2019
- Study startJul 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completionNov 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2019 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Pilot study not necessary as new data has become available.
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous TissueStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Gary Peksa
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Brooke Army Medical Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Loyola University, Kaiser Permanente, Stony Brook University
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Gary Peksa, Rush University Medical Center
- Investigators
- Gillian Schmitz, MD, Principal investigator, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03911518
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 19021803
- Status last verified
- Jul 2019
- First submitted
- 9 Apr 2019
- Last updated
- 5 Jul 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
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.
PubMed 25435407Thompson 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.
PubMed 24928539Stevens 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.
PubMed 24973422McNamara 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.
PubMed 21376200Gaszynski 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.
PubMed 27621209Ozturan 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.
PubMed 28162873Gottlieb 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.
PubMed 28917436
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Jul 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Loop vs. Traditional Incision and Drainage: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03911518
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 19021803
- Keywords
- incision and drainage, loop drainage, soft tissue infection, abscess
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Pilot study not necessary as new data has become available.
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Gary PeksaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Brooke Army Medical Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Loyola University, Kaiser Permanente, Stony Brook University
- Study start
- Jul 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Nov 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 11 Apr 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Active comparator | Procedure: Incision and drainageIncision and drainage. |
| Intervention | Experimental | Procedure: Loop drainageLoop drainage. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 100 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Adults age 18 years or older
- Abscess is considered simple, purulent, and cutaneous
- Abscess is deemed amenable to outpatient drainage
Key exclusion criteria (14 listed)
- Inability to speak English
- Abscess location of breast or face
- Pilonidal abscesses
- Concurrent use of chemotherapy or steroids
- Allergy to sulfa/trimethoprim or lidocaine
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Loop drainageLoop 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. | Procedure or surgery | Intervention |
| Incision and drainageThe 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. | Procedure or surgery | Control |
Primary outcome
Rate of Clinical Cure
Time frame: Days 10-14
Defined as healing of the abscess without the need for further clinical intervention (change in antibiotics, repeat drainage, or admission)
6 secondary outcomes
Intra-Procedure Pain Rating
Time frame: Day 0
Time to Complete Drainage
Time frame: Day 0
Patient Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Time frame: Days 0, 10-14
Provider Satisfaction: Numeric rating scale
Time frame: Day 0
Recurrence Rate
Time frame: Day 30
Cosmetic Healing
Time frame: Day 90
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Jul 2019.
- Background: PubMed 25435407Ladde 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.
- Background: PubMed 24928539Thompson 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.
- Background: PubMed 24973422Stevens 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.
- Background: PubMed 21376200McNamara 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.
- Background: PubMed 27621209Gaszynski 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.
- Background: PubMed 28162873Ozturan 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.
- Background: PubMed 28917436Gottlieb 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gillian Schmitz, MD principal investigator
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Loop drainage and Incision and drainage in people with Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue, run by Gary Peksa.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 14 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Jul 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Rate of Clinical Cure (time frame: Days 10-14). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03911518, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Jul 2019.