Percutaneous catheter versus open surgical drainage in the treatment of abdominal abscesses

In the past 3 years, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) was performed for 24 abdominal and retroperitoneal abscesses while open surgical drainage (OSD) was used for treatment of 24 similar abscesses at the affiliated hospitals of UMDNJ-Rutgers Medical School. Although the method of treatment was arbitrarily selected by the attending physician, the two groups were similar with respect to abscess location, underlying illnesses, and previous operations. In the PCD group, 17 of 24 abscesses developed after operations versus 16 of 24 in the OSD group. Location of abscesses were: PCD group: abdominal (9), renal (5), pelvic (4), subphrenic (3), hepatic (2), pancreatic (1); OSD group: abdominal (10), renal (4), subphrenic (4), pelvic (3), hepatic (2), pancreatic (1). With PCD, the abscesses were localized by ultrasound or computerized tomography scan; a 20- or 22-gauge needle passed into the cavity, followed by progressively larger guide wires, dilators, and catheters; the pus evacuated; and abscess cavity thoroughly irrigated with sterile saline. Percutaneous catheter drainage was successful in 22 of 24 cases. There were two inconsequential complications. The mean post-PCD hospital stay was 11.7 days. With OSD, five patients developed major complications, including three deaths from sepsis. The mean post-OSD stay for surviving patients was 21.2 days. The advantages of PCD versus OSD are: 1) precise noninvasive localization of abscesses, 2) avoidance of general anesthesia, 3) avoidance of major complications, and 4) shorter postdrainage hospital stay. Open surgical drainage should be reserved for cases where PCD fails to control sepsis, close fistulae, or when noninvasive scanning either fails to demonstrate a discrete abscess in the face of intra-abdominal sepsis or identifies an abscess that cannot be percutaneously drained without traversing the bowel.