Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 35293

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : August | Volume : 15 | Issue : 8 | Page : PC06 - PC10 Full Version

A Prospective Cohort Study of Catheter Drainage versus Percutaneous Needle Aspiration in Treatment of Liver Abscess


Published: August 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/49243.15264
RK Vineeth Kumar, Ashish Pratap Singh, Ashish Singh, Priyank Sharma

1. Resident, Department of General Surgery, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 3. Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 4. Professor, Department of General Surgery, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. RK Vineeth Kumar,
PG Boys Hostel, Room No. 10, Shyam Shah Medical College, Near SGMH,
Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh, India.
E-mail: vineeth.kumar.rk@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: India has second highest incidence of liver abscess worldwide. Image guided drainage methods are increasingly used to treat liver abscesses with fairly high success rates and with low cost and patient preference. But to choose a preferred one among these two methods of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage (PCD) and Percutaneous Needle Aspiration (PNA) still is a dilemma.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness and outcome of PCD and PNA in treatment of liver abscess.

Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 150 liver abscess patients in Shyam Shah Medical College in Vindhya region Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India, from June 2019 to May 2020. They were divided into two groups PNA (n=75) and PCD (n=75) by simple randomisation. Patient outcome was on the basis of duration to attain clinical relief (assessed subjectively), duration of hospital stay and days required for reduction in cavity size below 50%, death, and success rates were assessed in terms of number of attempts for adequate pus drainage. Chi-square test, non-paired Student’s t-test and ANOVA tests were used.

Results: In this study mean age was 40.57 years with 92.67% males. Most common lobe to involved was right lobe (87.3%). E.coli was the most common organism. All patients in PCD group were successfully treated in a single attempt. PNA group had a success rate of 84%. Mean number of days of clinical improvement were less for PCD (mean was 5.27 days) than PNA group (mean was 7.49 days) p-value=0.002. Mean days required for reduction in cavity size to less than 50% was lower in PCD (mean was 7.20 days) than PNA group (mean was 8.75 days) p-value=0.01. Total duration of hospital stay was higher in PNA (mean was 11.59 days) than in PCD group (mean was 9.28 days) p-value=0.03. All multiloculated cavities in PNA group were failures.

Conclusion: PCD method was found to be more efficacious than needle aspiration method in this study.

Keywords

Abscess drainage, Amoebic liver abscess, Pyogenic liver abscess

Liver abscess is a collection of purulent material within liver parenchyma. Amoebic liver abscess occurs more commonly on a worldwide basis and two third of amoebic liver abscess are found in developing countries, whereas the pyogenic liver abscess predominates in developed nations (1),(2). Previously surgical drainage was the most common method used but it was associated with significant mortality and morbidity (3).

Image guided placement of an indwelling catheter percutaneously is the most commonly preferred method to drain liver abscesses having the advantage being number of attempts are less, fast drainage, but catheter care poses some challenge and less patient preference. Although few studies have suggested needle aspiration to be a simpler and equally effective method of treatment with more patient preference, but incomplete evacuation and multiple attempts may be required sometimes thus producing the dilemma selection of procedure thus necessitating further studies (3),(4).

With this background the present study was conducted to assess the relative effectiveness of either one of these two techniques which is being done by assessing parameters like success rate, days of clinical improvement, days of hospital stay. Clinical, laboratory and radiological {Ultrasonography (USG)} profile of liver abscess patients was also undertaken in this study.

Material and Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted at Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradhesh, India, from June 2019 to May 2020 in which all 150 confirmed cases by USG and/or Computed Tomography (CT) scans of liver abscess were included. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (S.No:9405, 22/5/2019). Informed written consent was obtained from the participants and/or guardians or parents.

Inclusion criteria: Patients above 14 years of age, irrespective of sex, who attended the Outpatient Department and casualty at the Hospital and diagnosed to have liver abscess radiologically of >5 cm in size in at least one dimension or size more than 100 cc, liquefied and drainable were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: All liver abscesses smaller than 5 cm in their greatest dimension or less than 100 cc were excluded from the study. Patients who have received prior intervention, ruptured liver abscess, concomitant biliary tract malignancy and uncorrectable coagulopathy, non-aspirable and thick abscess were also excluded. Hydatid cyst and cystic tumours were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

In diagnostic dilemma with hydatid cyst during imaging USG, immunological (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) tests were carried out. To avoid diagnostic confusion of cystic tumour, magnetic resonance imaging of the patient was performed.

They were divided into two groups for Percutaneous Needle Aspiration (PNA) and Percutaneous Catheter Drainage (PCD) by simple randomisation each with 75 cases. All the consenting patients were started on medical treatment as per hospital protocol {Intravenous (i.v) 3rd generation cephalosporins and metronidazole 2.4 gm/day}. Detailed clinical history and clinical investigation including complete blood count, prothrombin time, liver function test, blood culture, chest X-ray and abdomen including pus culture and sensitivity were taken. The USG with or without computed tomography scan (as per indication of patients) was done for all subjects fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Percutaneous procedures were carried out under local anaesthesia (2% lignocaine). Both aspiration and catheter drainage was done under real time USG guidance. Repeat USGs was done as and when required and also after five days interval. follow-up was kept in all cases.

The criteria for successful intervention were taken as to allow resolution of infection by adequate drainage of abscess without the need for surgical drainage and discharge of patient from the hospital. Patient outcomes were recorded on the basis of duration of clinical improvement, duration of hospital stay, death, treatment success and failure rates.

The patients were discharged from hospital when infection subsided clinically, sonographic evidence of resolution of abscess like disappearance of abscess cavity or static cavity size with clinically infection subsided or decrease in size of abscess cavity (<50%).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was done by SPSS software (version 20). The chi-square test was used to analyse the success rates of the two treatment techniques. Unpaired Student’s t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of differences in the time needed for clinical improvement, time required for 50% reduction in size of abscess cavity and time required for hospitalisation. The p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant with confidence interval of 95%. ANOVA test was done for treatment success rate with mean cavity size.

Results

In present study, out of 150 liver abscess patients, there were patients ranging from lowest age of 19 years to highest age of 68 years. In the present study more than half of cases belonged to the age interval of 31 to 40 years (59.3%, n=89). Mean distribution of age was 40.57±9.18 (Table/Fig 1).

Majority of cases 139 (92.67%) were males and 11 females (7.33%). History of alcohol intake was found in 127 cases (84.67%) and all were male patients. All the patients presented with a combination of various signs and symptoms. All the cases of liver abscess presented with abdominal pain followed by fever seen in 87.33% (n=131). Previous history of diarrhea was seen only in 20.67% (n=31) of the patients. Cough, a symptom of pleuropulmonary involvement was seen only in 34% (n=51) (Table/Fig 2).

Most common clinical sign was right hypochondrial tenderness seen in 94% (n=141) followed by localised guarding (Table/Fig 3).

Average duration of illness was 3.11 weeks. In present study 98% (n=147) had low haemoglobin levels of value less than 13.5 gm/dL. About 84% (n=126) of the cases had leukocytosis. Eight patients (5.33%) had total White Blood Cell (WBC) count more than that of 20,000/μL. Most common LFT abnormality was raised serum alkaline phosphatase levels found in about 92% of the cases (n=138). Rest of laboratory findings is given in (Table/Fig 4).

Average size of the cavity was 324.47 cc±132.77 Cavity size interval with most number of cases (n=23, 15.33%) belonged to between 211-230 cc followed by 231-250 cc (n=21, 14%) (Table/Fig 5). Majority of the patients were found to have a single cavity (n=139, 92.66%). Two cavity liver abscesses was found in 9 cases (6%) and three cavities were found in 2 cases (1.3%). Multiloculations were seen in 19 cases (12.7%). Eight of them underwent percutaneous drainage and 11 had percutaneous aspiration requiring three or more attempts. Pus culture and sensitivity was done on all patients but found positive only in 22 cases (14.67%) (Table/Fig 6).

Total 75 patients underwent percutaneous aspiration and 75 patients percutaneous drainage. All the patients with percutaneous drainage had single attempt, whereas majority of aspiration patients required only single attempt (n=50, 66.67%), two attempts were required for 13 patients. Three or more attempts were considered as failure of intervention. One person required four aspiration attempts. Success rate in terms of attempts to evacuate pus were 98.67% for percutaneous drainage (one patient expired in this group due to complications of liver abscess: liver failure and septicaemia; unrelated to the procedure) and 84% for percutaneous aspiration. All the 11 cases with three attempts of aspiration had multiloculations (Table/Fig 7).

Average cavity size for cases who had three and/or more attempts of aspiration done (failure) were 297.27±14.9cc and 430cc (one case) respectively with statistical significance of p value-0.02 and successful cases of aspiration had average cavity size less than above mentioned (256.87±7.4 cc).

In PNA group the mean cavity size of cases with treatment failure (299.09cc) was found to be higher than that of successful ones (242.11cc) with statistical significance (ANOVA test) p-value=0.001. Mean number of days for clinical improvement after intervention, mean number of days required for reduction in cavity size to less than 50% and total duration of hospital stay; 5.27 vs 7.49; 7.20 vs 8.75; 9.28 vs 11.59 days for PCD vs PNA respectively were found to be lower in PCD group than in PNA group (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

In present study, majority of the cases belonged to the age interval of 31 to 40 years similar to what was obtained in study by Singh S et al., who had done a comparative study between both treatment methods in 60 patients (5). Similar results were also obtained in study by Mukhopadhyaya M et al., whose majority of the cases belonged to the age group 31-40 years. Mean age was 40.57 years similar to other studies (6),(7),(8). However, Giorgio A et al., reported average age in group of PLA as 45.3 years (8).

Majority of cases 139 (92.67%) were males and 11 cases (7.33%)were females similar to study by Ghosh S et al., but higher than that was found in other studies (5),(6),(7). This also concurs with studies by Ahsan T et al., and Goh KL et al., and Cai YL et al., study (9),(10),(11). This age predilection and gender differences may be as a result of high alcohol intake by young males which predisposes them to ALA (4).

In a study by Makkar RP et al., the liver iron was found to be significantly higher in patients with amoebic liver abscess, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Regular alcohol use was considered to be cause of higher liver iron in alcoholic ALA. Also, because of the regular menstrual blood loss, females belonging to reproductive age group are found to have lower iron stores. Low iron is unsuitable for the growth of E. histolytica (12).

History of alcohol intake was found in about 84.67% of the cases and all were males whereas in study by Mukhopadhyaya M et al., it was 61% (6). Similar findings were also found in study by Seeto RK et al., in which they opined that alcohol being an immunosuppressant, impairs Kupffer cell function and suppresses cellular and humoral immunity (13).

Most common symptom was abdominal pain seen in all cases followed by fever in 87.33% and loss of appetite in 48% of the cases. In a study by Mangukiya DO et al., of 400 patients most common symptom was the same as that in our study (14), but second and third symptoms were high grade fever (74%) and, nausea and vomiting (50%) respectively. Previous history of diarrheoa was seen in 20.67% (n=31) of the patients which was higher than that seen in study by Singh S et al., but similar in Trivedi M et al., in which 20% had prior history of diarrhea (5),(15). Most common clinical sign was right hypochondrial tenderness with hepatomegaly seen in 94% of the cases. In Ghosh S et al., and Anjan AK et al., it was tender hepatomegaly in 89% and 95%, respectively similar to present study (7),(16). Localised guarding was the second most common clinical sign seen in 42% of the patients, similar to study by Mangukiya DO et al., which was also it’s second most clinical sign seen in 47% (14). Icterus was reported in 4% of cases less than that in Anjan AK et al., (16). Cough a symptom of pleuro-pulmonary involvement was seen only in 34% of the cases and right-sided pleural effusion seen in 30 cases (20%) similar to Mukhyopadhya M et al., (6). As expected in Indian population where anaemia is highly common, 98% of the study population had anaemia (Hb <13.5 gm/dL) and leukocytosis {About 84% (n=126)} similar to other studies (6),(14).

Most common LFT found to be abnormal in our study was raised serum alkaline phosphatase levels seen in 92% of the cases (n=138) followed by elevated Prothrombin time found in 84.67% of the cases (n=127) followed by hypoalbuminemia in 74% of the cases. Similar results were found in other studies (5),(14),(17). But in Ghosh S et al., it was low serum albumin levels (7). Hyperbilirubinemia was seen in 16% of the cases in our study which concurs with other studies (5),(7),(18),(19). Various mechanisms for hyperbilirubinemia were suggested like pressure on biliary ducts (extra-hepatic obstruction) at or near the porta hepatis mainly by large abscess (20) and also by associated hepatitis or intrahepatic obstruction usually seen in large or multiple abscesses (21).

Most common lobe to be involved was right lobe seen in 137 cases (87.3%) which is in accordance with the findings of Sharma N et al., Kebede A et al., Qazi A R et al., (19),(21),(22). The reason being streaming effect in portal circulation where greater volume of blood goes to the right side than left as it is being supplied by superior mesenteric vein and also the biliary canaliculi are denser in right lobe leading to more congestion (23).

Multiloculations were seen only in 19 cases similar to Zerem E and Hadzic A (24). Pus culture and sensitivity was positive only in 22 cases (14.67%). Most common organism found was Escherichia coli (n=9, 40.91%) followed by Klebsiella (n=7, 31.8%). Similar findings were obtained in Ghosh S et al., with 22% culture positive (7) and also in Singh S et al., with most common and second most common organism being E.coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae respectively in both the studies (5). In Mangukiya DO et al., most common organism found was Klebsiella sp followed by E. coli (14) and in various other Asian studies (25),(26).

All the patients with PCD didn’t require any further attempts, whereas majority of the aspiration patients required only a single attempt (n=50, 66.67%). Three or more attempts were considered as failure of intervention. Rajak CL et al., compared PNA and PCD in which lack of response to a second attempt was considered failure of treatment which was done in present study (27) whereas Zerem E and Hadzic A considered third unsuccessful attempt as failure in treatment (24). In PNA, we had a success rate of 84% after second attempt in comparison with PCD group with success rate of 98.67% where as in Rajak CL et al., series PNA was successful in 60% (n=15) of the 25 patients (27), higher success rate would likely have been achieved in case of multiple repeated aspirations but such multiple needle aspirations is a traumatic and unpleasant experience for the patients and may not be acceptable to majority of the patients.

The cases with multiloculations in cavity (n=19) of which 11 went for PNA resulting in failure whereas the rest of the eight cases who had PCD were successful in treatment. This finding concurs with that of Zerem E and Hadzic A in which PNA of all multiloculated abscesses failed (24). Studies by Singh S et al., Bergert H et al., and Akinci D et al., considers continuous catheter drainage as a reliable and effective approach to the management of liver abscess (5),(28),(29). But studies by Yu SC et al., and Thomas J et al., considers repeated PNA and PCD as equally effective and considers PNA as a first-line treatment option (30),(31).

In our study, days required for clinical improvement and days for decrease in cavity size to less than 50% after intervention were found to be less for PCD group than that of PNA group. Total duration of hospital stay was found to be higher in PNA group than in PCD group which concurs with other studies (5),(28),(29). Similar findings were also obtained in study by Zerem E and Hadzic A and Singh O et al., which agrees with our findings of PCD being more efficient than intermittent PNA (24),(32). In study by Kulhari M too all the three outcome measures favored PCD over PNA group (33). The main strength of this study was its large sample size relative to that of other similar studies and the results of present study helps to contribute in answering the question of selection of procedure for first line management of liver abscess.

Limitation(s)

The patients in this study formed a heterogenous group including amoebic as well as pyogenic liver abscess and also by other causes. Aetiology of liver abscess was not evaluated in the present study. Most of the patients had been partially treated with antibiotics and then referred to our hospital, hence the probable reason for low culture positivity.

Conclusion

In contrast to PNA, percutaneous placement of an indwelling catheter provides continuous drainage. All three outcome measures of this study (hospital stay duration, treatment success rate, and days for 50% reduction in cavity size) favored the PCD group. The probability of failure of PNA increases with the increase in size of abscess cavity to be aspirated where PCD is a good method for adequate drainage of large sized abscesses.

Acknowledgement

To all the participating patients and their guardians/parents who were a part of this study.

References

1.
Dori F, Zaleznik, Dennis L, Kasper, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, et al., eds. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine: Chapter 84. Liver abscess. In: 20th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc 2018.
2.
Ochsner A, DeBakey M, Murray S. Pyogenic abscess of the liver II. An analysis of forty-seven cases with review of the literature. Am J Surg. 1938;40(1):292-319. [crossref]
3.
Pearce NW, Knight R, Irving H, Menon K, Prasad KR, Pollard SG, et al. Non-operative management of pyogenic liver abscess. HPB (Oxford). 2003;5(2):91-95. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Back SY, Lee MG, Cho KS, Lee SC, Sung KB, Auh YH. Therapeutic percutaneous aspiration of hepatic abscesses: Effectiveness in 25 patients. AJR. 1993;160:799-802. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Singh S, Chaudhary P, Saxena N, Khandelwal S, Poddar DD, Biswal UC. Treatment of liver abscess: Prospective randomised comparison of catheter drainage and needle aspiration. Annals of Gastroenterology. 2013;26(4):332-39.
6.
Mukhopadhyay M, Saha AK, Sarkar A, Mukherjee S. Amoebic liver abscess: Presentation and complications. Indian J Surg. 2010;72(1):37-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Ghosh S, Sharma S, Gadpayle AK, Gupta HK, Mahajan RK, Sahoo R, et al. Clinical, laboratory, and management profile in patients of liver abscess from northern India. Journal Tropical Med. 2014;1:8. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Giorgio A, Tarantino L, Mariniello N, Francica G, Scala E, Amoroso P, et al. Pyogenic liver abscesses: 13 years of experience in percutaneous needle aspiration with US guidance. Radiology. 1995;195(1):122-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Ahsan T, Jehangir MU, Mahmood T, Ahmed N, Saleem M, Shahid M, et al. Amoebic versus pyogenic liver abscess. J Pak Med Assoc. 2002;52(11):497-501.
10.
Goh KL, Wong NW, Paramsothy M, Nojeg M, Somasundaram K. Liver abscess in the tropics: Experience in the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur. Postgrade Med J. 1987;63(741):551-54. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Cai YL, Xiong XZ, Lu J, Cheng Y, Yang C, Lin YX, et al. Percutaneous needle aspiration versus catheter drainage in the management of liver abscess: A systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB(Oxford). 2015;17(3):195-201. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Makkar RP, Sachdev GK, Malhotra V. Alcohol consumption, hepatic iron load and the risk of amoebic liver abscess: A case-control study. Internal Medicine. 2003;42(8):644-49. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Seeto RK, Rockey DC. Amebic liver abscess: Epidemiology, clinical features, and outcome. West J Med. 1999;170(2):104-09.
14.
Mangukiya DO, Darshan JR, Kanani VK, Gupta ST. A prospective series case study of pyogenic liver abscess: Recent trends in etiology and management. Indian J Surg. 2012;74(5):385-90. Doi: 10.1007/s12262-011-0397-0. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Trivedi M, Lad V, Anis M, Patel S. Liver abscess: An observational study of clinical presentation and its management. Int J Surg Sci. 2019;3(1):145-48. [crossref]
16.
Anjan AK, Malua S. Liver abscess-Different modalities of treatment and its outcome. Global Journal for Research Analysis. 2019;8(5):01-03.
17.
Sreedhar S, Nynasindhu A, Sahaja. A clinico-pathological study of liver abscess. J. Evolution Med. Dent. Sci. 2018;7(11):1376-79. Doi: 10.14260/jemds/2018/313. [crossref]
18.
Kumar AS, Mishra A, Malhotra N, Alpana M. Hyperbilirubinemia in patients with amoebic liver abscess: A study of 75 cases. J Gastroint Dig Syst. 2013;3:138. [crossref]
19.
Sharma N, Sharma A, Varma S, Lal A, Singh V. Amoebic liver abscess in the medical emergency of a North Indian hospital. BMC Research Notes. 2010;3(1):21. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Mohsen AH, Green ST, Read RC, McKendrick MW. Liver abscess in adults: Ten years experience in a UK centre. QJM. 2002;95(12):797-802. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Kebede A, Kassa E, Ashenafi S, Woldemichael T, Polderman AM, Petros B. Amoebic liver abscess: A 20-year retrospective analysis at Tikur Anbessa Hospital, Ethiopia. EJHD. 2017;18(3):131-212. [crossref]
22.
Qazi AR, Naqvi SQH, Solangi RA, Memon JM, Lashari A. Liver abscess; diagnosis and treatment. Pakistan Journal of Surgery. 2008;24(3):203-06.
23.
Muthukumarasamy H, Ramakrishnan R. Liver abscess-anatomical correlation,” Anatomica Karnataka. 2011;5(2):81-86.
24.
Zerem E, Hadzic A. Sonographically guided percutaneous catheter drainage versus needle aspiration in the management of pyogenic liver abscess. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):W138-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Chou FF, Sheen-Chen SM, Chen YS, Chen MC. Single and multiple pyogenic liver abscesses: Clinical course, etiology, and results of treatment. World J Surg.1997;21:384-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Wong WM, Wong BC, Hui CK, Ng M, Lai KC, Tso WK, et al. Pyogenic liver abscess: Retrospective analysis of 80 cases over a 10-year period. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17(9):1001-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Rajak CL, Gupta S, Jain S, Chawla Y, Gulati M, Suri S. Percutaneous treatment of liver abscesses: Needle aspiration versus catheter drainage. AJR. 1998;170:1035-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Bergert H, Kersting S, Pyrc J, Saeger HD, Bunk A. Therapeutic options in the treatment of pyogenic liver abscess [in German]. Ultrashall Med. 2004;25:356-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Akinci D, Akhan O, Ozmen MN, Karabulut N, Ozkan O, Cil BE, et al. Percutaneous drainage of 300 intraperitoneal abscesses with long-term follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2005;28:744-50. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Yu SC, Ho SS, Lau WY, Yeung DT, Yuen EH, Lee PS, et al. Treatment of pyogenic liver abscess: Prospective randomised comparison of catheter drainage and needle aspiration. Hepatology. 2004;39:932-38. [crossref] [PubMed]
31.
Thomas J, Turner SR, Nelson RC, Paulson EK. Postprocedure sepsis in imaging guided percutaneous hepatic abscess drainage: How often does it occur? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5):1419-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Singh O, Gupta S, Moses S, Jain DK. Comparative study of catheter drainage and needle aspiration in management of large liver abscesses. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2009;28(3):88-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
33.
Kulhari M, Mandia R. Prospective randomised comparative study of pigtail catheter drainage versus percutaneous needle aspiration in treatment of liver abscess. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(3):E81-86. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/49243.15264

Date of Submission: Mar 03, 2021
Date of Peer Review: May 24, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jul 06, 2021
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 04, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jul 03, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jul 31, 2021 (16%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com