Comparison of Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses in Children
NCT ID: NCT02443272
Last Updated: 2016-04-19
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
81 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2014-09-30
Study Completion Date
2016-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The purpose of this study is to compare abscess drainage utilizing the vessel loop technique in children to the standard incision and drainage technique with the endpoint to determine if rates of treatment failure are non-inferior.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Trial of Abscess Drainage Techniques
NCT02545946
Cutaneous Abscess
COMPLETED
NA
Study of Wound Packing After Superficial Skin Abscess Drainage
NCT00746109
Abscess
Skin Diseases, Infectious
Boils
+5 more
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Loop Drainage: Effectiveness in Treating Cutaneous Abscesses
NCT02697279
Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue
TERMINATED
NA
A Comparison of Techniques for Treating Skin Abscesses
NCT01897675
Cutaneous Abscess
COMPLETED
NA
The LOOP Trial in Treatment of Skin Abscesses
NCT03398746
Abscess
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Infections of skin and soft tissue remain one of the more common chief complaints in the pediatric emergency department. With methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus being a prevalent pathogen, abscess development is not uncommon. The emergency department remains the common setting for required therapeutic intervention. However, active investigation exists in regard to the ideal intervention for children and adults.
Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess has remained the standard of care for years. However this standard has been adopted without robust supportive evidence. Recently, various studies have questioned the benefit of various aspects of treatment, including antibiotics, incision size, and necessity for packing. Other studies have even suggested a less-invasive approach. Some of these have utilized a vessel loop and have demonstrated a reduced need for home-health visits, reduced inpatient length of stay, good patient tolerance, and no increase in failure rates. These studies are, however, retrospective in design with execution primarily by the surgical team.
STUDY DESCRIPTION:
Upon obtaining written informed consent/assent by the study team member, subjects will be randomized using a computerized randomization procedure and opaque envelopes. Initially, thorough history and physical exam will be performed. A data sheet will be completed detailing patient characteristics (eg. age, gender, ethnicity, prior treatment) and wound characteristics (eg. greatest diameter of both erythema and induration, presence of spontaneous drainage, location). Pain control/procedural sedation will be selected at the discretion of the treating physician, consistent with current local practice (eg. topical lidocaine, intranasal fentanyl and/or midazolam, oral acetaminophen/hydrocodone or ibuprofen, intravenous ketamine, morphine, or fentanyl). Pain will be assessed prior to physical exam and again shortly after the procedure via the validated FACES-Revised Pain Scale. The patient will provide this assessment if 5 years or older. Otherwise, the parent will provide the degree of pain perceived for their child. The difference between these two pain assessments will be evaluated as an endpoint. Physicians will report on their satisfaction with the procedure using a 5-point Likert scale.
The control arm of incision and drainage will require a single linear incision over the most fluctuant portion of the abscess at a length deemed necessary by the treating physician. Expressed contents will be sent for wound culture. Loculations will be disrupted with a hemostat followed by copious irrigation with sterile saline. At the discretion of the treating physician, the wound may be packed with ΒΌ-inch iodoform gauze and dressed with dry gauze.
The intervention arm of vessel loop-drainage will require placement of a small incision of 4-5 mm at the periphery of induration. Expressed contents will be sent for wound culture. Using a hemostat, the loculations will be disrupted and expressed. Using the hemostat through the abscess cavity, the opposite aspect will be probed and a second 4-5 mm incision will be placed. The cavity will then be copiously irrigated with saline. A vessel loop (DeRoyal Industries; Powell, TN) will then be pulled through the cavity via the two incisions and loosely tied to itself above the skin using a surgeons knot. The wound will be dressed with dry gauze.
A prescription for antibiotics and pain medication will be provided at the discretion of the treating physician. The parent will be given standardized wound-care instructions (twice-daily soaks for 5 days with dry dressing re-application), contact information (phone and email) will be confirmed, selection of 24-48 hour follow-up will be made, and necessity of the 14- and 90-day follow-up will be emphasized. The parents will be encouraged to keep a pain medication diary (charted upon their care instructions) and bring the diary to their 2 initial follow-up appointments.
Upon completion of the initial ED encounter, data will be collected regarding type of pain control/procedural sedation during the ED course, selection of prescribed antibiotics and pain medication, and eventually results of wound culture.
24-48 hours after the incision and drainage procedure, subjects will return to the ED for a repeat evaluation. Packing will be removed from patients in the standard incision and drainage arm. The wound will be evaluated for five inflammatory components (i.e. presence of induration, fluctuance, drainage, tenderness, and warmth). If the evaluating physician decides that an abscess is still present and requires re-instrumentation, or if the infection requires admission for IV antibiotics, treatment failure will be declared. Following the assessment, the control arm may be repacked only if determined to be necessary. Parents will report on their satisfaction with the procedure, and simplicity of and anxiety with wound care utilizing a Likert scale of 1-5. Pain medication use will be quantified using their diary and then documented. Their contact information will be reconfirmed and the second follow-up appointment will be scheduled.
Subjects in the loop-drainage arm will receive emphasized instruction about technique and timing of loop removal. This will be performed at home only after drainage has ceased. Local practice by the general surgeon group suggests this is typically around post-operative day 5. Previous loop studies have performed this removal near day 8 to 10. We will encourage the parent to remove the loop on day 7 (if drainage has ceased) by simply cutting one side of the loop and pulling it from the cavity. A phone call will be performed on day 7 to assess readiness and provide support for removal. The day of loop removal will be documented.
Follow-up at post-procedure day 14 will be performed in the ED by a physician member of the study team. Prior to this visit, the parent will be reminded via telephone and email 2-3 days prior to the appointment. The wound will be evaluated for the same signs of inflammation as the previous visit. The wound will again be evaluated for indications of re-instrumentation or hospital admission (treatment failure). If the patient demonstrates systemic illness, parenteral antibiotics will be initiated with admission to the hospital. A second assessment will be performed at this follow-up visit; the Hollander scale will be applied to determine cosmetic outcome. The same Likert scales will be given to the parent regarding both the simplicity of, and anxiety with wound care. Pain medication use will again be quantified using their diary and then documented. The parent will be asked if any other physician encounters (here or elsewhere) were pursued and if re-instrumentation or hospital admission occurred. Follow-up will be encouraged with a $25 gift card (utilizing funding received from Scientific, Education and Research Foundation of UTSW Austin Research/Fellow Grant, and from research funds of the PEM fellowship department) to compensate families for their time and travel.
If the subject is unable to make the second follow-up appointment, a phone call will be performed to inquire if the patient presented to a hospital for intervention secondary to treatment failure of the initial abscess. If phone follow-up is unsuccessful, computerized chart review of the Seton network will be performed to obtain the same end-point.
At 3 months, parents will be called to inquire of their satisfaction with the wound scar using a 5-point Likert scale. They will also be reminded to return to the hospital to obtain photographic documentation of the scar. Another $25 gift card will be issued to those able to do so.
All patient records will be maintained in a locked, secure location, accessible by research personnel only.
Infections of skin and soft tissue remain one of the more common chief complaints in the pediatric emergency department. With methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus being a prevalent pathogen, abscess development is not uncommon. The emergency department remains the common setting for required therapeutic intervention. However, active investigation exists in regard to the ideal intervention for children and adults.
Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess has remained the standard of care for years. However this standard has been adopted without robust supportive evidence. Recently, various studies have questioned the benefit of various aspects of treatment, including antibiotics, incision size, and necessity for packing. Other studies have even suggested a less-invasive approach. Some of these have utilized a vessel loop and have demonstrated a reduced need for home-health visits, reduced inpatient length of stay, good patient tolerance, and no increase in failure rates. These studies are, however, retrospective in design with execution primarily by the surgical team.
STUDY DESCRIPTION:
Upon obtaining written informed consent/assent by the study team member, subjects will be randomized using a computerized randomization procedure and opaque envelopes. Initially, thorough history and physical exam will be performed. A data sheet will be completed detailing patient characteristics (eg. age, gender, ethnicity, prior treatment) and wound characteristics (eg. greatest diameter of both erythema and induration, presence of spontaneous drainage, location). Pain control/procedural sedation will be selected at the discretion of the treating physician, consistent with current local practice (eg. topical lidocaine, intranasal fentanyl and/or midazolam, oral acetaminophen/hydrocodone or ibuprofen, intravenous ketamine, morphine, or fentanyl). Pain will be assessed prior to physical exam and again shortly after the procedure via the validated FACES-Revised Pain Scale. The patient will provide this assessment if 5 years or older. Otherwise, the parent will provide the degree of pain perceived for their child. The difference between these two pain assessments will be evaluated as an endpoint. Physicians will report on their satisfaction with the procedure using a 5-point Likert scale.
The control arm of incision and drainage will require a single linear incision over the most fluctuant portion of the abscess at a length deemed necessary by the treating physician. Expressed contents will be sent for wound culture. Loculations will be disrupted with a hemostat followed by copious irrigation with sterile saline. At the discretion of the treating physician, the wound may be packed with ΒΌ-inch iodoform gauze and dressed with dry gauze.
The intervention arm of vessel loop-drainage will require placement of a small incision of 4-5 mm at the periphery of induration. Expressed contents will be sent for wound culture. Using a hemostat, the loculations will be disrupted and expressed. Using the hemostat through the abscess cavity, the opposite aspect will be probed and a second 4-5 mm incision will be placed. The cavity will then be copiously irrigated with saline. A vessel loop (DeRoyal Industries; Powell, TN) will then be pulled through the cavity via the two incisions and loosely tied to itself above the skin using a surgeons knot. The wound will be dressed with dry gauze.
A prescription for antibiotics and pain medication will be provided at the discretion of the treating physician. The parent will be given standardized wound-care instructions (twice-daily soaks for 5 days with dry dressing re-application), contact information (phone and email) will be confirmed, selection of 24-48 hour follow-up will be made, and necessity of the 14- and 90-day follow-up will be emphasized. The parents will be encouraged to keep a pain medication diary (charted upon their care instructions) and bring the diary to their 2 initial follow-up appointments.
Upon completion of the initial ED encounter, data will be collected regarding type of pain control/procedural sedation during the ED course, selection of prescribed antibiotics and pain medication, and eventually results of wound culture.
24-48 hours after the incision and drainage procedure, subjects will return to the ED for a repeat evaluation. Packing will be removed from patients in the standard incision and drainage arm. The wound will be evaluated for five inflammatory components (i.e. presence of induration, fluctuance, drainage, tenderness, and warmth). If the evaluating physician decides that an abscess is still present and requires re-instrumentation, or if the infection requires admission for IV antibiotics, treatment failure will be declared. Following the assessment, the control arm may be repacked only if determined to be necessary. Parents will report on their satisfaction with the procedure, and simplicity of and anxiety with wound care utilizing a Likert scale of 1-5. Pain medication use will be quantified using their diary and then documented. Their contact information will be reconfirmed and the second follow-up appointment will be scheduled.
Subjects in the loop-drainage arm will receive emphasized instruction about technique and timing of loop removal. This will be performed at home only after drainage has ceased. Local practice by the general surgeon group suggests this is typically around post-operative day 5. Previous loop studies have performed this removal near day 8 to 10. We will encourage the parent to remove the loop on day 7 (if drainage has ceased) by simply cutting one side of the loop and pulling it from the cavity. A phone call will be performed on day 7 to assess readiness and provide support for removal. The day of loop removal will be documented.
Follow-up at post-procedure day 14 will be performed in the ED by a physician member of the study team. Prior to this visit, the parent will be reminded via telephone and email 2-3 days prior to the appointment. The wound will be evaluated for the same signs of inflammation as the previous visit. The wound will again be evaluated for indications of re-instrumentation or hospital admission (treatment failure). If the patient demonstrates systemic illness, parenteral antibiotics will be initiated with admission to the hospital. A second assessment will be performed at this follow-up visit; the Hollander scale will be applied to determine cosmetic outcome. The same Likert scales will be given to the parent regarding both the simplicity of, and anxiety with wound care. Pain medication use will again be quantified using their diary and then documented. The parent will be asked if any other physician encounters (here or elsewhere) were pursued and if re-instrumentation or hospital admission occurred. Follow-up will be encouraged with a $25 gift card (utilizing funding received from Scientific, Education and Research Foundation of UTSW Austin Research/Fellow Grant, and from research funds of the PEM fellowship department) to compensate families for their time and travel.
If the subject is unable to make the second follow-up appointment, a phone call will be performed to inquire if the patient presented to a hospital for intervention secondary to treatment failure of the initial abscess. If phone follow-up is unsuccessful, computerized chart review of the Seton network will be performed to obtain the same end-point.
At 3 months, parents will be called to inquire of their satisfaction with the wound scar using a 5-point Likert scale. They will also be reminded to return to the hospital to obtain photographic documentation of the scar. Another $25 gift card will be issued to those able to do so.
All patient records will be maintained in a locked, secure location, accessible by research personnel only.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Abscess of Skin and/or Subcutaneous Tissue
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Control Arm
Receive standard incision and drainage
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Incision and Drainage
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Standard of care treatment will utilize incision and drainage over the center of the abscess cavity with or without packing at physicians discretion.
Intervention Arm
Receive minimal invasive loop drainage using the Vesi-loop device
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Vessel Loop Drainage
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Minimally invasive approach will utilize a vesi-loop device for the vessel loop drainage technique by placing 2 peripheral stab incisions into the abscess with a tunnel through the abscess cavity, and loop passed through the tunnel and tied atop the skin.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Vessel Loop Drainage
Minimally invasive approach will utilize a vesi-loop device for the vessel loop drainage technique by placing 2 peripheral stab incisions into the abscess with a tunnel through the abscess cavity, and loop passed through the tunnel and tied atop the skin.
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Incision and Drainage
Standard of care treatment will utilize incision and drainage over the center of the abscess cavity with or without packing at physicians discretion.
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Physical findings suggestive of skin abscess warranting incision and drainage (determined by treating physician)
Exclusion Criteria
* Abscess not suitable for drainage in the ED (eg. \<1 cm induration, \>15 cm induration)
* Immunocompromised status (eg. diabetic patient or taking immunosuppressive medication)
* Need for hospitalization following drainage
* Abscess located above the clavicles or significantly involving genitals/pilonidal region
* Previous instrumentation to the abscess
* Primary language not English or Spanish
* High probability of loss to follow up (parent does not commit to both mandatory follow up appointments)
* Immunocompromised status (eg. diabetic patient or taking immunosuppressive medication)
* Need for hospitalization following drainage
* Abscess located above the clavicles or significantly involving genitals/pilonidal region
* Previous instrumentation to the abscess
* Primary language not English or Spanish
* High probability of loss to follow up (parent does not commit to both mandatory follow up appointments)
Minimum Eligible Age
29 Days
Maximum Eligible Age
17 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Scientific, Education and Research Foundation of UTSW Austin
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Seton Healthcare Family
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Logan R Rencher, DO
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
UT-Austin Dell Children's Medical Center PEM Fellowship
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Dell Children's Medical Center
Austin, Texas, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Llera JL, Levy RC. Treatment of cutaneous abscess: a double-blind clinical study. Ann Emerg Med. 1985 Jan;14(1):15-9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(85)80727-7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Duong M, Markwell S, Peter J, Barenkamp S. Randomized, controlled trial of antibiotics in the management of community-acquired skin abscesses in the pediatric patient. Ann Emerg Med. 2010 May;55(5):401-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.03.014. Epub 2009 May 5.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Schmitz GR, Bruner D, Pitotti R, Olderog C, Livengood T, Williams J, Huebner K, Lightfoot J, Ritz B, Bates C, Schmitz M, Mete M, Deye G. Randomized controlled trial of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin abscesses in patients at risk for community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Sep;56(3):283-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.03.002. Epub 2010 Mar 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Leinwand M, Downing M, Slater D, Beck M, Burton K, Moyer D. Incision and drainage of subcutaneous abscesses without the use of packing. J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Sep;48(9):1962-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.01.027.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kessler DO, Krantz A, Mojica M. Randomized trial comparing wound packing to no wound packing following incision and drainage of superficial skin abscesses in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012 Jun;28(6):514-7. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182587b20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
O'Malley GF, Dominici P, Giraldo P, Aguilera E, Verma M, Lares C, Burger P, Williams E. Routine packing of simple cutaneous abscesses is painful and probably unnecessary. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 May;16(5):470-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00409.x. Epub 2009 Apr 10.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tsoraides SS, Pearl RH, Stanfill AB, Wallace LJ, Vegunta RK. Incision and loop drainage: a minimally invasive technique for subcutaneous abscess management in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Mar;45(3):606-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.06.013.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
McNamara 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.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ladd AP, Levy MS, Quilty J. Minimally invasive technique in treatment of complex, subcutaneous abscesses in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Jul;45(7):1562-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.03.025.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Alder AC, Thornton J, McHard K, Buckins L, Barber R, Skinner MA. A comparison of traditional incision and drainage versus catheter drainage of soft tissue abscesses in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2011 Oct;46(10):1942-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.05.025.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Wright TN, Gilligan L, Zhurbich O, Davenport DL, Draus JM Jr. Minimally invasive drainage of subcutaneous abscesses reduces hospital cost and length of stay. South Med J. 2013 Dec;106(12):689-92. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0000000000000032.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B. The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain. 2001 Aug;93(2):173-183. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00314-1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tsze DS, von Baeyer CL, Bulloch B, Dayan PS. Validation of self-report pain scales in children. Pediatrics. 2013 Oct;132(4):e971-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1509. Epub 2013 Sep 2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7):1892-1897. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000287275.15511.10.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rencher L, Whitaker W, Schechter-Perkins E, Wilkinson M. Comparison of Minimally Invasive Loop Drainage and Standard Incision and Drainage of Cutaneous Abscesses in Children Presenting to a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Prospective, Randomized, Noninferiority Trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021 Oct 1;37(10):e615-e620. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001732.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
CR-14-114
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Incision and Loop Drainage Utilizing a Novel Technique for Management of Cutaneous Abscess in an Adult Population
NCT04241471
WITHDRAWN
NA
Loop Drainage Versus Incision and Drainage for Abscesses
NCT03911518
WITHDRAWN
NA
Comparison of Suturing and Packing of Drained Abscesses
NCT00465049
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Abscess Packing Versus Wick Placement After Incision and Drainage
NCT01281930
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Needle Aspiration and Open Incision and Drainage for Cutaneous Abscesses
NCT01186900
TERMINATED
NA
Incision and Drainage Versus Needle Aspiration in Soft Tissue Abscesses
NCT01085929
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Comparison of Loop and Primary Incision&Drainage Techniques in the Emergency Department
NCT02286479
COMPLETED
NA
Abscess Aspiration
NCT04127071
UNKNOWN
NA
A Randomized Blinded Trial of Abscess Management With Packing vs No Packing
NCT01698996
WITHDRAWN
NA
Packing Versus no Packing for Cutaneous Abscess
NCT02822768
RECRUITING
NA
Laparoscopic Management of Periappendicular Abscess
NCT01283815
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Irrigation Versus no Irrigation for Cutaneous Abscess
NCT01606657
COMPLETED
NA
Non-Powered Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Open Technique for Pilonidal Disease
NCT03483480
UNKNOWN
NA
Purse String Versus Conventional Wound Closure Techniques in Children Undergoing Stoma Reversal
NCT07335835
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Wick vs. No Wick: Does Method of Closure Affect Rate of Wound Infection?
NCT01691352
WITHDRAWN
NA
Appendectomy Versus Non-Operative Treatment For Acute Non-Perforated Appendicitis in Children
NCT02687464
COMPLETED
NA
Continuous Topical Instillation for Open Abdomen in the Septic Patients With Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections
NCT02029339
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Surgical Site Infection Rate Between Primary, Delayed Primary and Vacuum Assisted Closures.
NCT02649543
COMPLETED
NA
The Effect of Wound Irrigation With Irrisept on Abscess Healing (Irrisept UF Study)
NCT04957732
TERMINATED
NA
Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Simple Puncture Compared to the Incision of an Abscess on the PiLOnidal Sinus
NCT06378918
RECRUITING
NA
Treatment of Abdominal Abscesses With or Without Fibrinolysis
NCT01597336
COMPLETED
NA
Irrigation Versus Suction in Complicated Acute Appendicitis
NCT02688244
UNKNOWN
NA
De-roofing and Curettage vs WLE for Pilonidal Abscess
NCT03415347
UNKNOWN
NA
Delayed Primary Closure Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
NCT04042259
RECRUITING
NA
Double Ligation and Topical Silver Nitrate
NCT04248101
COMPLETED
PHASE2