Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
J Cutan Med Surg ; 25(1_suppl): 1S, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484256
Acad Emerg Med ; 27(11): 1150-1157, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455493


BACKGROUND: There is limited research on loop drainage (LD) compared to incision and drainage (I&D) for treatment of cutaneous abscesses. We investigated whether LD was noninferior to I&D for abscess resolution and whether there was any difference in repeat ED visits or complication rates between these techniques. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial, using a convenience sample at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Subjects over 18 years who presented for first-time management of an abscess were eligible. Patients requiring specialist drainage or hospital admission or had previous treatment for the abscess were excluded. Enrolled subjects were seen 2 weeks after treatment for blinded reevaluation of abscess resolution, and the electronic medical record was reviewed for return ED visits/abscess complications. RESULTS: Of 2,889 patients screened, 238 subjects consented and were randomized to LD or I&D. Abscess resolution was achieved in 53/65 (81.5%) of patients in the I&D arm, compared to 66/75 (88%) in the LD arm. Fewer patients in the LD group compared to the I&D group returned to the ED for abscess-related management during the following 14 days (37.3% vs 67.1%, p = 0.002). Among returning subjects, there was a significant difference in mean visits per subject between LD and I&D groups (0.5 vs. 1.2, p = 0.001). There were fewer complications among LD than I&D subjects (9.3% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that LD is noninferior to I&D in achieving complete abscess resolution at 14 days and is associated with fewer return ED visits and fewer complications. This makes it an attractive alternative treatment option for abscesses.

Abscess , Skin Diseases , Abscess/surgery , Drainage , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Prospective Studies , Skin Diseases/surgery
Dermatol Ther ; 33(5): e13777, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-582613


The World Health Organization has recently defined the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections as a pandemic. The infection, which may cause a potentially very severe respiratory disease, now called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has airborne transmission via droplets while less attention focused on aerosol transmission. Surgical smoke and plumes in laser clinics represent a source for aerosol particles. The aim of this article is to provide the authors' opinion for the correct use of "laser devices" in the COVID-19 emergency and to reduce potential risks of laser airborne contaminants.

COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Laser Therapy , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Aerosols , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Dermatologic Surgical Procedures , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/surgery , Smoke