Clinical Trials Logo

Abscess clinical trials

View clinical trials related to Abscess.

Filter by:

NCT ID: NCT04832529 Recruiting - Perianal Abscess Clinical Trials

A Perianal Abscess Cavity Packing vs no Packing.

Start date: March 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

This prospective randomized trial will be conducted in all patients undergoing packing or no packing for perianal abscess cavity after incision and drainage, for 6 months after approval from IRB in Surgical unit III, Civil Hospital Karachi. Patient will be selected simple random sampling technique based on inclusion criteria. Patient will be assessed for post-operative pain, healing of cavity and recurrence of abscess. At first time of debridement pus or tissue will be sent for culture and sensitivity, meanwhile broad-spectrum antibiotic will be started. Questionnaire will be filled by PI for post-operative pain, recurrence of abscess, quality of life, wound healing, post operative fistula in ano and chronic post surgical pain either due to packing or no packing.

NCT ID: NCT04817631 Completed - Clinical trials for Tubo-ovarian Abscess

Management of Tubo-ovarian Abscess: a Single Center Experience

Start date: January 1, 2010
Study type: Observational

Electronic database of our tertiary obstetrics and gynecology clinic was searched for patients who were treated for tub-ovarian abscess during the last 10 years (January 2010- November 2020). Patients' biometric data, admission date and duration, medical and surgical treatment modalities were recorded using an Excel sheet. Patients will be evaluated on the basis of the treatment they receive, length of treatment, if surgically treatment the type of surgery performed. Hospitalization length, readmission, recurrence will be compared between treatment modalities.

NCT ID: NCT04684407 Recruiting - Clinical trials for Dentoalveolar Abscess

C-reactive Protein Levels in Acute Apical Abscess Due to Root Canal Infection

Start date: November 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

C-reactive protein levels of patients with acute apical abscess are evaluated before and after root canal treatment

NCT ID: NCT04634448 Not yet recruiting - Appendicitis Clinical Trials

The Prevalence of Appendiceal Tumours in Periappendicular Abscess

Start date: December 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

Complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis follow different epidemiological trends also suggesting different pathophysiology behind these two different forms of appendicitis. In 3-10% of patients complicated acute appendicitis is enclosed by formation of a circumscribed periappendicular abscess. The clinically established practice of antibiotic therapy and drainage, if necessary, has been shown safe and effective, allowing the acute inflammatory process to subside in more than 90% of cases without surgery. The need of subsequent interval appendectomy has been questioned with appendicitis recurrence risk varying between 5-26%. During trial enrollment in our randomized Peri-APPAC trial based on the interim analysis results with 17% appendiceal tumor rate in the study population, the trial was prematurely terminated based on ethical concerns. All the follow-up group patients were re-evaluated and surgery was offered and recommended to all follow-up group patients. After this assessment and additional appendectomies, two more tumors were diagnosed resulting in neoplasm rate of 20% in the whole study group all diagnosed in patients over 40 years and the neoplasm rate in patients over 40 years was 29%. Based on high appendiceal tumor rate in patients over 40 years, the appendiceal neoplasm rate needs to be further evaluated in prospective patient cohorts undergoing interval appendectomy as interval appendectomy is generally well tolerated and obliterates the risk of missing a possible tumor. In a recent systematic review of retrospective cohort studies with 13.244 acute appendicitis patients the overall appendiceal tumor rate was 1% after appendectomy, but in patients presenting with appendiceal inflammatory mass the neoplasm rate varied from 10% to 29%. This nationwide prospective multicenter cohort study is designed to assess the prevalence of appendiceal tumors associated with a periappendicular abscess. All consecutive patients presenting with a periappendicular abscess are recommended to undergo interval appendectomy after initial conservative treatment with antibiotic therapy and drainage, if necessary. All patients older than 35 years will undergo laparoscopic interval appendectomy at 2 to 3 months and this is also recommended for the patients between 18 and 35 years of age. Asymptomatic patients under 35 years not willing to undergo interval appendectomy, will undergo a follow-up MRI at 1 year after the initial non-operative treatment.

NCT ID: NCT04549311 Not yet recruiting - Perianal Fistula Clinical Trials

Packing and Antibiotics on Re-intervention and Fistula After Abscess Incision and Drainage Trial

Start date: January 2021
Phase: Phase 3
Study type: Interventional

Most perianal abscesses (PA) result from an infection originating in anal crypts that extend into anal glands in the intersphincteric plane. Patients commonly present to the ER and usually require surgical intervention, which poses a burden on the healthcare system. If left undrained, a PA can expand into the adjacent tissues as well as progress to systemic infection. One of the major complications of PA are perianal fistulae; the creation of a tract between the anal canal and the perianal skin that is lined with granulation tissue or skin cells. Up to 1/3 of patients with a PA will develop a fistula; which occurs if a PA drains spontaneously through the perianal skin, and the infection becomes chronic. If this happens, surgical intervention is needed and abscesses may reoccur. Post incision and drainage antibiotics in PA have been used to address complications but their use is still controversial and there are no specific recommendations on their use to prevent the formations of fistulae. The evidence with respect to the practice of daily packing post-incision and drainage of PA is unclear. A Cochrane review (2 RCTs, N=64 patients) published in 2016 concluded that they could not establish any benefit in packing vs. no packing. High-quality RCTs are needed to address this question, along with examining the impact of antibiotics on fistula formation following incision and drainage of PA. In this trial, adults with PA will be randomly assigned to packing of the PA cavity after incision and drainage, compared to not packing the cavity until the cavity has healed, and giving post-operative antibiotics compared to no antibiotics. This trial will be conducted under the IMPACTS (Innovative, Multicentre, Patient-centred Approach to Clinical Trials in Surgery) program umbrella and will follow IMPACTS methodology. For the Vanguard trial, the aim is to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial. Future outcomes of interest are the need for re-intervention (i.e., any intervention on the perianal region), fistula formation (defined as continuous drainage of the perianal region), quality of life, narcotic use after discharge, health system costs, healing time and mortality.

NCT ID: NCT04543708 Not yet recruiting - Tonsillar Abscess Clinical Trials

Surgical Treatment of Tonsillar Abscess

Start date: October 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

The diagnosis and treatment of tonsillar abscess are very physician-dependent, as sufficient prospective medical literature is lacking to choose the most efficient regimen. The proposed study aims to assess the therapeutic efficacy of tonsillectomy compared to drainage under local anesthesia. This is a prospective, randomized clinical trial in adults in a tertiary care center in Geneva (Switzerland).

NCT ID: NCT04241471 Withdrawn - Abscess Clinical Trials

Incision and Loop Drainage Utilizing a Novel Technique for Management of Cutaneous Abscess in an Adult Population

Start date: May 4, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

When using the rolled ring of a sterile glove as a loop drain in incision and loop drainage, is it superior to incision and drainage for treatment of a cutaneous abscess in 18 to 65 year-old patients presenting to the Emergency Department, Family Health Clinic, Family Medicine Residency Clinic, or Internal Medicine Clinic? Hypothesis: When treating a cutaneous abscess, incision and loop drainage utilizing the rolled ring of a sterile glove as a loop drain is superior to the standard (incision and drainage) yielding a treatment failure rate of 1% at seven to ten days.

NCT ID: NCT04141787 Recruiting - Abscess Clinical Trials

Ceftriaxone as Home IV for Staph Infections

Start date: July 11, 2019
Phase: Phase 4
Study type: Interventional

Patients who are admitted to hospital with serious infections, such as those in bone, joints or spine, require a long course of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. After an initial treatment course in hospital or through a dedicated outpatient antibiotic program many patients can complete their treatment course at home. Such infections are often caused by bacteria called Staphylococci, and currently there are three antibiotic options used routinely. A fourth antibiotic, ceftriaxone, is a promising alternative; it is also effective against Staphylococci, and is more convenient, less costly and easier to give at home, however, it has not been studied thoroughly in a prospective manner. This study will compare ceftriaxone to routinely used antibiotics (cloxacillin, cefazolin or daptomycin) to see if ceftriaxone is equally as safe and efficacious in curing deep-seated Staphylococcal infections in patients receiving home IV antibiotics. Patients with deep-seated infections caused by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or coagulase-negative Staphylococcal species will be randomly assigned home IV treatment with ceftriaxone OR one of the three other antibiotics before leaving the hospital. Patients will then receive usual care from an Infectious Disease physician and Home IV team. The study team will assess whether cure has been achieved by the end of the IV treatment, follow-up at 6 months to see if patients remain infection-free, and record any side-effects of treatment. The overall goal is to determine whether ceftriaxone can be considered non-inferior to usual antibiotic treatment in treating Staphylococcal infections in a home IV setting.

NCT ID: NCT04140903 Recruiting - Brain Abscess Clinical Trials

Partial Oral Antibiotic Treatment for Bacterial Brain Abscess

Start date: November 6, 2020
Phase: Phase 4
Study type: Interventional

The investigators aim to determine if oral antibiotics are clinically acceptable as treatment of brain abscess. Following 2 weeks of standard intravenous antibiotic therapy, half of patients will continue with this treatment for another 4 weeks or longer while the other half will be assigned to oral antibiotics for the remaining duration of treatment.

NCT ID: NCT04127071 Not yet recruiting - Skin Abscess Clinical Trials

Abscess Aspiration

Start date: June 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

Incision and drainage (I&D) is the standard guideline treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses (a boil or bumo beneath the skin). Ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (USGNA) is a minimally invasive and less painful alternative treatment, but has not been validated as non-inferior to I&D. Multiple studies have shown successful treatment with USGNA of breast, face, neck, and/or trunk abscesses in combination with oral antibiotics with success rates as high as 97%. In 2011 Gaspari et al. published a landmark article on the use of USGNA for skin abscesses. In this randomized controlled trial, USGNA and I&D had failure rates of 74% and 20% respectively, which makes USGNA an unappealing treatment option. However, the study had several methodological issues that likely biased the results in favor of I&D, including the following: 1) aspiration was performed with an 18-gauge needle which is often too small to aspirate thick purulence (or pus); 2) failure to fully aspirate all abscess contents was a priori defined as treatment failure rather than strictly clinical outcomes; 3) the abscess aspiration procedure was not standardized; and 4) post-intervention oral antibiotic therapy was not used on all patients. The main hypothesis is that a modified protocol of the Gaspari et al. USGNA study to address these flaws will demonstrate a failure of USGNA comparable to I&D for the treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses. First, the study will standardize the use of larger 14-gauge needle on all USGNAs. Second, USGNA intervention failure need not be defined as the inability to completely aspirate all abscess cavity contents under ultrasound guidance. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical success with USGNA of skin abscesses without applying the rigid failure criteria chosen by Gaspari et al. There is only one study in the literature to suggest that there is no correlation between a small quantity of residual abscess contents post-USGNA and ultimate clinical failure, however, there are no studies which specifically address this clinical question. In this study, initial treatment failure of USGNA will be defined as the inability to aspirate any purulent material. Third, treatment outcomes in this study will be determined by clinical resolution of abscess at the study endpoint of 7-10 days, which is a well-established timeline for anticipated abscess healing and endpoint clinical follow-up. Fourth, ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physicians will perform USGNA in standardized fashion on all enrolled patients. Lastly, post-intervention oral antibiotic with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage will be provided and compliance closely monitored throughout the study.