Application of closed negative pressure irrigation and suction device in the treatment of high perianal abscess
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2019.04.009
- VernacularTitle: 封闭式负压冲吸装置在高位肛周脓肿治疗中的应用
- Author:
Shaoquan CHEN
1
;
Wenchi LIU
;
Zaizhong ZHANG
;
Liying LIN
;
Shuming CHEN
;
Guoliang HUANG
;
Chengzhi LIN
;
Lie WANG
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, the 900th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA, (Fuzhou General Hospital of Fujian Medical University, East Hospital Affiliated To Xiamen University), Fuzhou 350025, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Perianal abscess, high position;
Closed negative pressure irrigation and suction device;
Therapeutic effect
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2019;22(4):364-369
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the efficacy of closed negative pressure irrigation and suction device (Patent number: Z200780013509.8) in the treatment of high perianal abscess.
Methods:From January 2015 to December 2016, ≥18-year-old patients with primary high perianal abscess who were treated at our department were prospectively enrolled. Exclusion criteria: (1) recurrent perianal abscess; (2) complicated with anal fistula formation; (3) preoperative, intraoperative or postoperative physical therapy, and curettage treatment, negative pressure irrigation; (4) Crohn′s disease-related perianal abscess; (5) with immunosuppressive status, such as transplant recipients; (6) co-existence of malignant tumors, such as leukemia; (7) with diabetes; (8) those who could not receive long-term follow-up and were not suitable to participate in this study. According to the random number table method, the patients were randomly divided into negative pressure irrigation and suction group and routine drainage group. All patients were clearly diagnosed and the location and size of the perianal abscess were marked before surgery. These two groups were treated as follows: (1) Negative pressure irrigation and suction group: the skin was incised at a diameter of 1-2 cm at the site where the abscess fluctuated most obviously. After the abscess was removed, a closed negative pressure irrigation and suction device was installed and the pressure of -200 to -100 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) was maintained to keep the abscess cavity collapsed. Generally, the irrigation was stopped 5 days later or when the drainage was clear. The closed vacuum suction was maintained for 2 additional days, before the wound was sutured. (2) Conventional drainage group: conventional incision and drainage was carried out. The skin was cut at a diameter of 8 to 10 cm at the site of abscess with most obvious fluctuation. After the abscess was removed, normal saline gauze was used for dressing. Dressing was changed regularly until the wound healed. The efficacy, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, frequency of dressing change, pain index (visual analogue score, VAS score), postoperative healing time, complications, recurrence rate of perianal abscess, anal fistula formation rate were observed. The t test and χ2 test were used for comparison between the 2 groups.
Results:There were both 40 patients in the negative pressure irrigation and suction group and the conventional drainage group. There were 28 males and 12 females in negative pressure irrigation and suction group with a mean age of (38.3±12.0) years and mean disease course of (6.6±2.1) days. The abscess in pelvic-rectal space accounted for 50.0% (20/40) and the mean diameter of abscess was (8.0±3.7) cm. There were 26 males and 14 females in the conventional drainage group with a mean age of (37.1±11.8) years and mean disease course of (6.4±2.5) days. The abscess in pelvic-rectal space accounted for 55.0% (22/40) and the diameter of abscess was (8.2±3.5) cm. The differences in baseline data between two groups were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Both groups successfully completed the operation. There was no significant difference in operative time between two groups (P>0.05). As compared to conventional drainage group, intraoperative blood loss in negative pressure irrigation and suction group was less [(12.1±5.5) ml vs. (18.3±4.4) ml, t=5.606, P<0.001], incision length was shorter [(2.3±0.8) cm vs. (7.6±1.7) cm, t=17.741, P<0.001], postoperative VAS pain scores at 1-, 3-, 7-, and 14-day after operation were lower [3.7±1.4 vs. 7.6±1.8, t=10.816, P<0.001; 3.0±1.3 vs. 6.8±1.6, t=11.657, P<0.001; 2.7±0.9 vs. 5.1±1.1, t=10.679, P<0.001; 1.2±0.3 vs. 1.6±0.4, t=5.060, P=0.019], the dressing change within 7 days after operation was less (3.5±1.2 vs. 12.6±2.7, t=19.478, P<0.001), postoperative healing time was shorter [(10.4±3.0) d vs. (13.5±3.8) d, t=4.049, P<0.001] and postoperative complication rate was lower [17.5% (7/40) vs. 2.5% (1/40), χ2=5.000, P=0.025]. During follow-up of 12 to 36 (24±5) months, the recurrence rate of perianal abscess within 1 year after operation and anal fistula formation rate in negative pressure irrigation and suction group were lower than those in conventional drainage group [5.0% (2/40) vs. 20.0% (8/40), χ2=4.114, P=0.042 and 2.5% (1/40) vs. 17.5% (7/40), χ2=5.000, P=0.025, respectirely]. The one-time cure rate of negative pressure irrigation and suction group and conventional drainage group was 92.5% (37/40) and 62.5%(25/40), respectirely (χ2=10.323, P=0.001).
Conclusions:The application of the negative pressure irrigation and suction device in the treatment of high perianal abscess can improve the efficiency of one-time cure, reduce postoperative pain, accelerate healing time, decrease the morbidity of postoperative complication and the rates of abscess recurrence and anal fistula formation, indicating an improvement of the treatment.
