Literature DB >> 27010228

Comparison of medical versus surgical management of peritonsillar abscess: A retrospective observational study.

Dante L S Souza1, Daniel Cabrera1, Waqas I Gilani1, Ronna L Campbell1, Matthew L Carlson2, Christine M Lohse3, M Fernanda Bellolio1,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients presenting with peritonsillar abscess (PTA) treated with either initial medical or surgical management. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort.
METHODS: A consecutive cohort of patients presenting between 2010 and 2014 with the final diagnosis of PTA (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 475) were included. Comparisons between groups were evaluated using two-sample t, Wilcoxon rank sum, χ(2) , and Fisher exact tests.
RESULTS: Among 297 patients who presented with PTA during the 5-year period, 97 (33%) underwent primary medical management, and 200 (67%) received surgical treatment. Patients who received initial surgical management had larger abscess size (2.6 vs. 1.3 cm, P < .001) and were and more likely to have muffled voice (79% vs. 47%, P < .001), drooling (29% vs. 17%, P = .03), peritonsillar bulge (91% vs. 66%, P < .001), trismus (65% vs. 22%, P < .001), and dysphagia (86% vs. 73%, P = .008). There was no difference in the rates of imaging (55% vs. 59%) or antibiotic administration (100% in both groups), length of hospital stay (median 2 vs. 1 day, P = .27) or complications (1% vs. 2%, P = .6). Patients treated medically were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (22% vs. 11%, P = .014) and less likely to receive steroids (78% vs. 95%, P < .001). There was no difference in return visits (20% medical vs. 14% surgical, P = .17) or failure rates (5% medical vs. 3% surgical, P = .30).
CONCLUSIONS: Initial medical management can be considered in patients with less advanced symptoms or smaller abscess size without compromising outcome. Those with more advanced symptoms may benefit from surgical drainage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1529-1534, 2016.
© 2016 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Peritonsillar abscess; neck space infection; pharyngitis; tonsillitis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27010228     DOI: 10.1002/lary.25960

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Is the team leading surgeon criminally liable for his collaborators' errors? Judges confirm responsibility and condemn an otorhinolaryngologist.

Authors:  G Montanari Vergallo; M Ralli; A DI Luca; N M DI Luca
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.124

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

Authors:  C Mansour; G De Bonnecaze; E Mouchon; A Gallini; S Vergez; E Serrano
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Utility of Smartphone Telemedical Consultations for Peritonsillar Abscess Diagnosis and Triage.

Authors:  Jonathan R Mallen; Manan Udayan Shah; Ryan Drake; Kathryn Kreicher; Todd Falcone; Nicholas Karter; Scott Schoem; Christopher Grindle; Stephen Wolfe; Chia-Ling Kuo; Jinjian Mu; Seth Lotterman; Gregory Bonaiuto
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 6.223

4.  Increased Levels of S100A8/A9 in Patients with Peritonsillar Abscess: A New Promising Diagnostic Marker to Differentiate between Peritonsillar Abscess and Peritonsillitis.

Authors:  Christoph Spiekermann; Antonella Russo; Markus Stenner; Claudia Rudack; Johannes Roth; Thomas Vogl
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.434

5.  Potential of the Novel PTA Score to Identify Patients with Peritonsillar Inflammation Profiting from Medical Treatment.

Authors:  Christoph Spiekermann; Johannes Roth; Thomas Vogl; Markus Stenner; Claudia Rudack
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.434

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.