Observational studyIrish journal of medical science2019
Packing versus mushroom catheters following incision and drainage in anorectal abscess.
Observational study in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with or without cavity packing: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Needle aspiration treatment vs. incision of acute simple perianal abscess: randomized controlled study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Trial
- Fused Ischiorectal Phlegmon with Pre- and Retroperitoneal Extension: Case Report and Narrative Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Anorectal Abscess.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024Review
- Drainage of anorectal abscesses in the operating room is associated with a decreased risk of abscess recurrence and fistula formation.American journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeManagement of anorectal abscess is traditionally by incision and drainage with packing. This study assessed the use of mushroom catheters compared with packing of anorectal abscess after incision and drainage in adults. Placement of a mushroom catheter to allow ongoing drainage of the cavity may have advantages by eliminating the need for painful dressing changes.
methodsThis was a retrospective observational study. Following ethical approval, a chart review of 167 patients treated for anorectal abscess with either packing or mushroom catheter at Cork University Hospital from 2010 to 2015 was performed. Treatment decision was based on individual surgeon preference. Outcome measures included recurrence and fistula development. Telephone follow-up was also performed to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L).
resultsOne hundred and twenty-nine patients were treated with incision and drainage with packing, and 38 patients were treated with mushroom catheter. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence (p = 0.691) or fistula development (p = 0.299) between the groups. Twenty-three patients had Crohn's disease, 17 patients had diabetes and 66 patients were smokers. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence or fistula development between the treatment groups in Crohn's (p = 0.493), diabetics (p = 0.949) and smokers (p = 0.275). On average, patients treated with mushroom catheter reported a statistically significant higher satisfaction score (9.2 ± 1.0) than patients treated with packing (7.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.013).
conclusionMushroom catheter drainage of anorectal abscesses is a safe alternative to traditional packing and results in higher patient satisfaction. This study provides a rationale for a future randomised controlled trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.