The effectiveness of needle aspiration versus traditional incision and drainage in the treatment of breast abscess: a meta-analysis

2Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Breast abscess is a common and intractable clinical condition and the use of needle aspiration (NA) or incision and drainage (ID) in treatment is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically compare the clinical effectiveness of NA and ID in treating breast abscesses. Methods: The Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to January 7, 2022. The ROB-2 tool assessed risk of bias; the GRADE methodology rated certainty in outcomes; and Stata 16.0 performed data analyses. Results: Nine RCTs were included, including 703 patients. The results showed there was no significant difference in cure rate between the two groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.86, 1.07]; p =.469), and after subgroup analysis, we found that it was not related to the use of ultrasound guidance or not. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate (RR = 0.68, 95% CI [0.35, 1.30]; p =.241). Furthermore, the NA group was associated with shorter healing time (weighted mean differences = −11.02, 95% CI [−15.14, −6.90]; p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhou, F., Li, Z., Liu, L., Wang, F., Yu, L., Xiang, Y., … Yu, Z. (2023). The effectiveness of needle aspiration versus traditional incision and drainage in the treatment of breast abscess: a meta-analysis. Annals of Medicine, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2224045

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free