Advertisement

Comparison of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage under local anaesthesia for the initial treatment of peritonsillar abscess

  • C. MansourEmail author
  • G. De Bonnecaze
  • E. Mouchon
  • A. Gallini
  • S. Vergez
  • E. Serrano
Head and Neck
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The treatment of peritonsillar abscess (PTA) is still controversial regarding the best method of drainage to perform. This study aims to compare effectiveness and safety of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage under local anaesthesia for the initial treatment of PTA.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients (age > 15 years) admitted in two tertiary medical centres for a PTA between November 2010 and October 2016 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of drainage: needle aspiration or incision and drainage, under local anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay; the need to repeat the procedure or to go to the operating room was also assessed. Complications or adverse events were listed in each group to assess safety.

Results

Over a 6-year period, 182 patients were admitted for a PTA and included in the analysis, with 82 patients in the aspiration group and 100 patients in the incision group. Mean age was 36.3 years, with a sex ratio of 1.33. The length of hospital stay ranged from 1 to 7 days (mean 2.7 days, median 2 days) with a median length of stay of 3.0 days (interquartile range 2–4) in the aspiration group versus 2.0 days (IQR 2–3) in patients who underwent incision and drainage (p = 0.009). A repetition of the needle aspiration was made for 46.3% of patients versus 10% of repetition of the procedure in the incision group (p = 0.0001). 12 patients (14%) of the aspiration group and 4 patients (4%) of the incision group required an additional drainage under general anaesthesia (p < 0.001). We found no differences regarding safety in both groups.

Conclusion

Our study showed a significant decrease in the length of hospital stay in patients admitted for a PTA who underwent an initial incision and drainage under local anaesthesia, compared to needle aspiration, as well as a lower risk of repeating the procedure. A well-designed prospective and randomized study on a larger sample of patients is required to support these findings.

Keywords

Peritonsillar abscess Quinsy Needle aspiration Incision and drainage Local anaesthesia 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and received no funding concerning this article.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study with retrospective design, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson RF, Stewart MG, Wright CC (2003) An evidence-based review of the treatment of peritonsillar abscess. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128(3):332–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Couloigner V, Graber M (2014) L’angineetses complications. EMC-ORL Fév 9(1):5–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    SFORL (2014) Recommandations pour la Pratique Clinique. Complications loco-régionales des pharyngitisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Powell JWJA (2012) An evidence-based review of peritonsillar abscess. Clin Otolarygol 37:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spires J, Owens J, Woodson G et al (1987) Treatment of peritonsillar abscess: a prospective study of aspiration vs Incision and drainage. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:984–986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maharaj D, Rajah V, Hemsley S (1991) Management of peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 105:743–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stringer SP, Schaefer SD, Close LG (1988) A randomized trial for outpatient management of peritonsillar abscess. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 114:296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demeslay J, De Bonnecaze G, Vairel B et al (2014) Possible role of anti-inflammatory drugs in complications of pharyngitis A retrospective analysis of 163 cases. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 131(5):299–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lepelletier D, Pinaud V, Le Conte P et al (2016) Is there an association between prior anti-inflammatory drug exposure and occurrence of peritonsillar abscess (PTA)? A national multicenter prospective observational case–control study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 36(1):57–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feasson T, Debeaupte M, Bidet C et al (2016) Impact of anti-inflammatory drug consumption in peritonsillar abscesses: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis 16(1):432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf M, Even-Chen I, Kronenberg J (1994) Peritonsillar Abscess: Repeated needle aspiration versus Incision and drainage. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 103:554–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Souza DL, Cabrera D, Gilani WI et al (2016) Comparison of medical versus surgical management of peritonsillar abscess: A retrospective observational study. Laryngoscope 126(7):1529–1534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehanna HM, White A (2002) National audit of the management of peritonsillar abscess. Postgrad Med J 78:545–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schechter GL, Sly DE, Roper AL et al (1982) Changing face of treatment of peritonsillar abscess. Laryngoscope 92:654–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ et al (2016) Needle aspiration** versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:006287Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herzon F (1995) Peritonsillar abscess: incidence, current management practices, and a proposal for treatment guidelines. Laryngoscope 105(74):1–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chi TH, Yuan CH, Tsao YH (2014) Comparison of needle aspiration with incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess. WIMJ Open 1(1):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan MI, Iqbal K, Marwat M (2012) Peritonsillar abscess: comparison of outcome of incision and drainage versus needle aspiration. Gomal J Med Sci 10(2):205–208Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nwe TTSB (2000) Management of pain in peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 114:765–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service d’ORL et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, CHU de toulouse, hôpital LarreyToulouse cedex 9France
  2. 2.Service d’épidémiologieCHU de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  3. 3.UMR 1027 InsermUniversité Paul Sabatier Toulouse 3ToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Institut Universitaire du Cancer de ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations