Abstract
Objectives:
Peritonsillar abscesses are a common otolaryngological emergency. Needle aspiration and incision and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used. The effectiveness of one versus the other remains an area of debate among otolaryngologists. The objective of this review is to recognize whether needle aspiration or incision and drainage is the superior treatment for peritonsillar abscesses.
Methods:
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library); PubMed; EMBASE; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; and Google Scholar for relevant English studies. Selection criteria were applied to limit the review to randomized controlled trials comparing needle aspiration to incision and drainage in humans over the age of 12 years. The primary outcome studied was abscess recurrence rate.
Results:
Five studies were identified which compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage. All were of poor quality with no paper having a Jadad score above 2. One study reported a higher recurrence rate with needle aspiration and four no obvious difference in recurrence rate between the two techniques. Meta-analysis was inappropriate.
Conclusions:
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine which if any of the two treatments is superior. A sufficiently powered, well-designed randomized controlled clinical trial is required to compare the effectiveness of needle aspiration with incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscesses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.