Comparative Outcomes Between Needle Aspiration and Incision-and-Drainage in Breast Abscesses: Is Less Truly More?

Background The incidence of breast abscesses has increased in recent years, especially in developing countries. Breast abscesses have traditionally been treated with incision and drainage (InD), but there has been a shift toward USG-guided percutaneous catheter placement or USG-guided and/or blind needle aspiration (NA). Our study aimed to determine which procedure was the best via comparison. Methodology We undertook this two-year prospective observational study at our tertiary care center. The study included 60 participants whose treating surgeons advised them to undergo either an NA or an InD. They were then divided into two groups of 30 patients each. Previously defined parameters of interest were observed and recorded. The data was tabulated and analyzed, with a P-value of 0.05 considered significant. Results A statistically significant correlation between four variables was identified: age of participants, size and volume of breast abscesses, recovery time post-procedure, and the procedure of choice. No statistical relevance was found in the relationship between parity status and culture sensitivity reports and the chosen interventional technique. Conclusions Younger women prefer opting for an NA, although recurrence rates are greater than for InD. Staphylococcus aureus was identified as the most common organism, with drug-resistant forms accounting for approximately 63% of the samples. The size of breast abscesses may play a role in intervention choice, but researchers' opinions vary. When all variables and their associations are considered, we advocate that the treating surgeon be the lead decision-maker who personalizes decisions for each patient.