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

Users Online : 108612

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI 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
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,
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,
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
(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)
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.
On April 2011

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
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : December | Volume : 16 | Issue : 12 | Page : TC05 - TC09 Full Version

Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Drainage of Intra-abdominal Collection and its Clinical Outcome: A Prospective Interventional Study

Published: December 1, 2022 | DOI:
Sushant Agarwal, Bijit Kumar Duara, Rajib Ahmed, Bhaskar Das

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India. 2. Professor, Department of Radiology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India. 3. Resident, Department of Radiology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India. 4. Resident, Department of Radiology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Bhaskar Das,
Bhabani Path (Go Baat), Lalung Gaon, Betkuchi Shiva Shakti Nagar, NPS Road, Guwahati-781040, Assam, India.


Introduction: Intra-abdominal collections are abscesses that occur within the peritoneal cavity, the pelvis or behind the peritoneum (retroperitoneum) or intra-parenchymal. They are common complications of colorectal disease, particularly inflammatory bowel disease, malignancy and trauma. Ultrasound is very useful in establishing the diagnosis, quantification and localisation of intra-abdominal abscesses. Open Surgical Drainage (SD) used to be the traditional treatment protocol. Recently however, percutaneous drainage procedures are becoming an essential therapeutic strategy in the treatment of this condition.

Aim: To study the therapeutic efficacy of ultrasound-guided drainage of abdominal abscess and to compare it with open SD.

Materials and Methods: A prospective interventional study was conducted in 94 patients with intra-abdominal abscess at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India, in between July 2019 to June 2020 who were randomly allocated into two groups and underwent respective procedures. The first group was Percutaneous Catheter Drainage (PCD) and second group was open Surgical Drainage (SD) group. Patient demographics, symptoms, aetiologies and locations of the collections as well as duration of hospital stay, success rate, and complications were analysed. Results of radiological findings were tabulated, evaluated and collated between both the groups. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software 21.0 version was used for analysing data and p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: For abdominal collections and abscesses, ultrasound guided percutaneous drainage was successful in 96.8% of the patients whereas it was successful in 80% cases in the SD group. Complications were more frequently encountered in patients who underwent open SD (16.70%) compared to percutaneous drainage (12.40%) which was significant (p-value 0.0136). The average duration of stay for the group undergoing percutaneous drainage was 9.13±1.62 days which was shorter than for the group undergoing SD was 11.10±1.75 days (p-value <0.001). The overall rate of failed percutaneous drainage was 3.2% as compared to SD where it was 20%.

Conclusion: The presesnt study concluded that, image-guided percutaneous drainage has lesser complications and higher success rate for abdominal collections/abscesses as compared to SD. Due to lower mortality rates as well as shorter duration of hospitalisation than open SD, it can replace the traditional open or laparoscopic approach of drainage in most cases.


Abdominal abscess, Pigtail catheterisation, Postoperative complications, Ultrasonography

Intra-abdominal collections are abscesses that occur within the abdominal cavity i.e., within the peritoneal cavity, the pelvis or behind the peritoneum (retroperitoneum) (1). They are common complications of colorectal disease, particularly inflammatory bowel disease, malignancy and trauma. Ultrasound is very useful in establishing the diagnosis, quantification and localisation of intra-abdominal abscesses. But, it is limited by presence of ileus and big exploratory wounds with the covering dressings (2). The usual mechanism of visceral abscesses include haematogenous or lymphatic spread of an infective organism usually bacteria to an organ (3). Non visceral abscesses usually occur after resolution of a diffuse peritoneal infective aetiology after which a loculated infected area or collection is localised by defensive mechanisms of the peritoneum (4).

Ultrasonography and Computed Tomography (CT) scan help in quantification and localisation of collection. Traditionally, open Surgical Drainage (SD) with adjuvant antibiotics has been used. However, sophisticated percutaneous drainage methods have recently gained importance for management of this problem. Image-guided percutaneous drainage of abdominal collections and abscesses show a high success rate with the advantage of being minimally invasive and thus, has been recently considered as the treatment of choice for the majority of cases regardless of aetiology. Percutaneous Drainage (PCD) is thus, feasible for critically-ill patients who are unfit for general anaesthesia. In most patients, percutaneous drainage has replaced the old approach of abdominal collection drainage, and it is also employed as a temporary remedy in critically sick patients (5).

Studies have been done comparing the effectiveness of SD vs percutaneous drainage in management of intra-abdominal abscess drainage (5),(6). However, a review of literature of the topic revealed that there were very few studies that have been done for comparison in India, even though, India having a very high prevalence of intra-abdominal collections (7),(8). Due to its benefit in cost and morbidity, the present study aims to explore the benefit of percutaneous drainage in being a better management modality for treatment of abdominal abscesses.

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of ultrasound-guided drainage of abdominal abscesses and its relationship with surgical drainage of abdominal abscesses.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective interventional study on the outcome of PCD for treatment of intra-abdominal abscess conducted among 94 patients with intra-abdominal abscess at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India, in between July 2019 to June 2020 after taking approval from Institutional Ethical Committee (No. MC/190/2007/Pt-11/Mar-2019/PG/111). Patients who gave written informed consent to participate in the procedure were included in the study.

The patients with clinical suspicion of intra-abdominal collection/abscess were assessed by detailed history and clinical examination as well as routine blood tests including complete blood count, renal function tests, urine microscopy, serology for Hepatitis B and C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and liver function tests. Diagnosis was confirmed by radiological investigations ultrasonography of abdomen and, if required, CT scan of the abdomen. The patients with ultrasound or CT documented collections/abscesses were assessed for image-guided percutaneous intervention as per the following inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria: Patient of age group between 20 to 70 years and both genders with collection size more than 5 cm on ultrasound/CT scan presenting with sufficient suspicion of symptoms due to collection and refractory to medical management were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients below age of 20 and above the age of 70 years. Patients with co-existing uncorrected coagulopathy and uncooperative, unstable patients or refusal for procedure were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A total of 130 total patients were included in the present study by convenient sampling, who were randomised into two groups (n=65 each) by computer generated random numbers with a block size of 10. The patients were allocated into two groups, however, due to period of strict lockdown during the course of the study period, detailed reports and data collection of only 30 patients in the SD group could be done. One patient from the PCD was lost to follow-up. The total sample size was 94 patients.

Percutaneous Drainage (PCD) group (n=64)
Open Surgical Drainage (SD) group (n=30)

Study Procedure

Percutaneous Catheter Drainage (PCD) technique: Suitable antibiotic cover was started a day prior to the procedure. Abscess was localised by ultrasonography and a safe drainage route planned to avoid injury to other intra-abdominal organs. The local area was cleaned with betadine and spirit. With aseptic precaution sufficient local anaesthesia was given with 2% lignocaine. A stab incision (5 mm) was made at the planned skin entry site. The “trocar method” was used (9). The locking pigtail catheter (Devon® percutaneous pigtail suprapubic catheter set, 8F/10F, length 22 cm) was mounted on a sharp stylet and introduced under sonographic guidance. Once, it was confirmed that sheath was in the cavity by imaging it was reconfirmed by removing stylet and aspirating the pus. The catheter was attached to a drainage bag (Urobag Romo 10). The catheter was fixed to the skin by 2-0 mersilk non absorbable reverse cutting surgical suture (Ethicon®) and a sterile dressing pad was applied. All catheters were allowed for gravity drainage and were flushed three to four times daily with 10 mL of sterile saline to prevent its blockage with debris. Intravenous (i.v.) ceftriaxone-sulbactam (1.5 grams i.v. twice daily) and (metronidazole 500 mg i.v. thrice daily) were given in therapeutic doses for a period of 2-4 weeks. Alternate day ultrasonogram studies were done to monitor the cavity size and volume and to confirm the position of tip of the catheter. The pigtail catheter was removed when drainage either ceased or was minimal and disappearance or reduction in size of collections on repeat imaging (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2).

Open Surgical Drainage (SD) technique: For open SD patients were made to fast for at least six hours and abscess localised by USG and marked. All surgeries were performed under general or epidural anaesthesia (3 mL 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline 15 μ). The abdominal wall was opened in layers with an incision according to prior localisation by ultrasound. The abscess was localised and haemostatic forceps was used to enter the abscess cavity. It was completely drained out with suction. A thorough wash was given with normal saline (0.9%). A thorough examination of the intra-abdominal contents was made to rule out other intra-abdominal pathology. Large bore tube drain was placed and brought out through a separate stab incision and the abdomen was closed in layers. Patient was monitored regularly with a watch on the temperature, pulse, respiration in the postoperative period. Oral feeds were started as tolerated by the patient. Drains were removed accordingly (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2).

Drainage was recorded daily and the response to treatment assessed by clinical and laboratory parameters and also by serial ultrasound. Normal saline was used for irrigation, whenever required. The duration of stay and time of defervescence of fever was recorded for every patient. Patients were followed-up for a period of three months and any complications during this period were recorded and managed according. The patients were discharged with clinical improvement; in ambulatory state, tolerating proper diet and oral antibiotics.

Success was defined by the following criteria (5):

• After the abscess treatment, the patient recovered with improvement of symptoms, decreased White Blood Count (WBC) counts, improved appetite and overall condition.
• No recurrence or infectious complications observed within a three month follow-up after removal of catheter.
• Significant decrease in size on follow-up imaging by ultrasound (>60% reduction) with no evidence of loculation or multiple collections.

Statistical Analysis

Data were entered into Microsoft Excel sheet and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software 21.0 version was used for analysing data and p-value <0.05 was considered significant. The qualitative variables were presented as, percentages, frequencies and proportions. Categorical variables were presented in the form of frequencies and percentages while continuous variables were presented as mean±Standard Deviation (SD). The association of qualitative variables was analysed using Fisher’s-exact test and quantitative variables using Student’s t-test.


Of the total 94 of cases included in the study, 64 patients were included in the ultrasound-guided PCD and 30 patients were included in the conventional SD group. Mean age of the population was 42 years with a standard deviation of eight years. The majority of the patients were in the age group of 41-50 years in percutaneous drainage and 21-30 years in SD group (Table/Fig 3).

Abdominal pain was the most common symptom present in 84.4% patients with fever was the second most common symptom present in 65.6% of the patients followed by nausea/vomiting found in 48.4% in patients in PCD. Abdominal pain was also the most common symptom present in 73.3% patients in the SD group (Table/Fig 4).

Most of the cases were of unknown primary (32.8% and 40%) both in PCD and SD group followed by postoperative (20.3% in PCD group) and appendicitis (20% in SD group) with other causes are Crohn’s disease, biliary pathology, diverticular, hepatitis, pancreatitis pyelonephritis, abdominal trauma and tubercular (Table/Fig 5).

Majority of abscesses in the studied population had a solitary lesion (81.3%) in the PCD but the majority of abscess in the SD were multiple (56.70%). The hepatic abscess collection was the most prevalent site followed by the subhepatic and pelvic. Other location of abscess formation in PD and SD groups included 11 patients had abscess in lesser sac, 10 patients had abscesses in the subdiaphragmatic, seven patients had abscess in perinephric and psoas abscess each and six patients had abscesses in ileocaecal and paracolic regions each (Table/Fig 6).

The average duration of stay was longer in patients who underwent open SD (11.10±3.42 days) compared to percutaneous drainage (9.13±1.63 days). The mean time of defervescence of fever who underwent percutaneous drainage (4.31±1.75 days) and compared to percutaneous open SD (4.94±2.01 days) (Table/Fig 7). Percutaneous drainage was successful in 96.8% patients whereas failure was seen in 3.2% patients, whereas, it was 80% successful and 20% failure in case of SD (Table/Fig 8).

Complications were more frequently encountered in patients who underwent open SD (16.7%) compared to percutaneous drainage (12.4%) (Table/Fig 9). In the PCD, complications included catheter blockage and catheter dislodgement which were seen in 4.7% and 3.1% patients, respectively in patients. Enteric communication, empyema, peritonitis and catheter site infection were seen in 1.6% patients each in the PCD. In the SD group, wound infection and bleeding were encountered in 6.7% patients each. Intestinal obstruction was seen in 3.3% of cases in SD (Table/Fig 9).

Predrainage and postdrainage USG scans for ultrasound guided percutaneous technique of intra-abdominal collections at different sites with are shown in (Table/Fig 10),(Table/Fig 11),(Table/Fig 12).


In the present study, abdominal pain (84.4%) and fever (65.6%) were the most common symptoms observed in both PCD and SD groups. The present study is, also comparable with study reported by Dhurve AS et al., in which pain was the single most consistent symptoms, observed in all cases (100%) and associated with fever in 90% of cases (8). In the present study, 35% patients the cause of abscess was not known called as cryptogenic cause. The present study is comparable with study reported by Dhurve AS et al., in which the cause of abscess was not known in 47.5% patients (8).

In India, liver abscesses are a very common tropical disease which was reflected in the present study with hepatic abscess being the most prevalent site of collection (31.3% of the cases in PCD and 20% cases in SD group) followed by the subhepatic site (15.6% in PD group) and pelvic (20% in SD group). This is comparable with study reported by Rajak CL et al., (10). This is also comparable with study reported by Dhurve AS et al., who reported more visceral (solid organ) abscesses (67%) compared to both subphrenic and pelvic abscesses (8). In a 2020 study by Wani RA et al., liver abscess was the most common cause of collection (64%) (5).

Intra-abdominal collections are treated by drainage, which can be either be done by traditional method of open surgical access or by image-guided percutaneous approach. The later has shown to supersede in the recent years. This is mainly because of the easier procedure, relative atraumatic nature as well as fewer complications. Akinci D et al., encountered some catheter complications as dislodgement, obstruction, or kinking in (6.7%) of the patients, with no major injuries (6). This was comparable to the present study with these complications accounting for 7.8% of patients. Dhurve AS et al., encountered different category of complications which are some cases of septicaemia and chest infections which are not related to the interventional maneuver itself, but a complication of the original septic condition (8).

In the present study, the total complication rate was 14.89%. There was a statistically significant higher rate of complication in the SD group (16.7%) as compared to PCD group (12.4%) (p-value=0.0136). Dhurve AS et al., reported a lower rate of complication of 7.5% in his 2018 study of USG guided percutaneous abscess drainage (8). Akinci D et al., and Lucey BC et al., also reported similar complication rates of 3.1% and 10.3%, respectively (6),(11).

Mean hospital stay for the group undergoing percutaneous drainage (9.13±1.62 days) was shorter than for the group undergoing surgical (11.10±1.75 days) therapy (p-value <0.001). There were a variety of selection factors such as severity of illness and the presence of multiple abscesses that likely biased the surgically treated patients to ward a longer duration of hospitalisation. Politano AD et al., also reported that the median length of hospital stay in the SD group to be higher (28.1±1.62 days) than in the PCD group (13.5±0.78 days) (p-value <0.001) (12). The same results were proved by Nguyen DL et al., who reported longer hospital stay (15.5 days) with SD compared to non SD (13).

In the current study, percutaneous drainage on which the study was focusing; there was a very significant success rate 96.8% patients and compared to the originally successful SD method. This is well compared and correlated with those reported by Akinci D et al., (6). A 84.4% of patients were successful drained by percutaneous techniques in a 2020 study by Wani RA et al., (5). The present study had a failure rate of 3.2% in the PCD group. vanSonnenberg E et al., reported a failure rate of 8% in cases of abscess drainages which was higher than the present study (14). This is correlated with study done by Akinci D et al., with 6% failure rate (6).

There was no mortality noted in present study. This is correlated with the study done by vanSonnenberg E et al., where zero percent mortality was found (14). Another study by Rafiq S et al., also had no mortality in their study done for loculated pleural space collections (15). Wani RA et al., in their reported a mortality rate of 1.1% (5). However, a 2011 study by Politano AD et al., reported a higher mortality in open SD (14.6%) than that in percutaneous drainage (4.2%) (12). Percutaneous technique has a low complication rate and shorter mean hospital stay, as compared to surgery which is well-compared and correlated with those reported by Laganà D et al., and Gervais DA et al., who stated that percutaneous drainage is an effective alternative to operative drainage in patients at high risk, for general anaesthesia (16),(17).


The present study was a single-centre study, which was done for a period of only one year. Further research is needed to generalise the results of the present study. Due to Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) lockdown, during the course of the study period, detailed reports and data collection was only done for a small sample size. One patient from the PCD was lost to follow-up. The cases were followed-up only, for a shorter duration i.e, three months, complications beyond which were not taken into account for the study.


Image-guided percutaneous drainage was found to be a safe, minimally invasive and relatively less traumatic procedure drainage technique for abdominal collections/abscesses with a high success rate. Ultrasonography as a choice of imaging guidance provides real-time visualisation of catheter position and movements, is costeffective and free of ionising radiation. Percutaneous drainage has a lower rate of mortality, as well as, shorter duration of hospitalisation than open surgical drainage and thus, can replace the traditional open or laparoscopic approach of drainage in most cases.


Mehta NY, Copelin II EL. Abdominal Abscess. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Knochel JQ, Koehler PR, Lee TG, Welch DM. Diagnosis of abdominal abscesses with computed tomography, ultrasound, and 111In leukocyte scans. Radiology. 1980;137(2):425-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
Adams DB, Harvey TS, Anderson MC. Percutaneous catheter drainage of infected pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections. Arch Surg Chic Ill 1960. 1990;125(12):1554-57. [crossref] [PubMed]
Adil A, Ousehal A, Essodegui F, Abdelouafi A, Kadiri R. Percutaneous treatment of abdominal collections. Apropos of 135 cases. J Radiol. 1995;76(2-3):129-34.
Wani RA, Digra NC, Gupta K. Image-guided percutaneous drainage of intra abdominal fluid collections and abscesses: A hospital based prospective study. World J Surg Surg Res. 2020;3(1)1219.
Akinci D, Ergun O, Topel Ç, Çiftçi T, Akhan O. Pelvic abscess drainage: Outcome with factors affecting the clinical success. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018;24(3):146-52. [crossref] [PubMed]
Shetty M, Deme S, Mohan K, Adiraju KP, Modugu NR, Chandra N, et al. Experience with splenic abscess from southern India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):OC22-25. [crossref] [PubMed]
Dhurve AS, Bodade RM, Bugga RR, Nandu VV, Meshram MM. Clinical study of intra-abdominal abscess and its management by percutaneous USG guided drainage. Int Surg J. 2018;5(6):2211-16. [crossref]
Fan W, Cc C, Chan J. Image-guided drainage using the trocar technique. J Hong Kong Coll Radiol. 2008;11:69-71.
Rajak CL, Gupta S, Jain S, Chawla Y, Gulati M, Suri S. Percutaneous treatment of liver abscesses: Needle aspiration versus catheter drainage. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(4):1035-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
Lucey BC, Boland GW, Maher MM, Hahn PF, Gervais DA, Mueller PR. Percutaneous nonvascular splenic intervention: A 10-year review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(6):1591-96. [crossref] [PubMed]
Politano AD, Hranjec T, Rosenberger LH, Sawyer RG, Tache Leon CA. Differences in morbidity and mortality with percutaneous versus open surgical drainage of postoperative intra-abdominal infections: A review of 686 cases. Am Surg. 2011;77(7):862-67. [crossref] [PubMed]
Nguyen DL, Sandborn WJ, Loftus EV, Larson DW, Fletcher JG, Becker B, et al. Similar outcomes of surgical and medical treatment of intra-abdominal abscesses in patients with Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(4):400-04. [crossref] [PubMed]
vanSonnenberg E, Mueller PR, Ferrucci JT. Percutaneous drainage of 250 abdominal abscesses and fluid collections. Part I: Results, failures, and complications. Radiology. 1984;151(2):337-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rafiq S, Dar MA, Nazir I, Shaffi F, Shaheen F, Kuchay IA. Image-guided catheter drainage in loculated pleural space collections, effectiveness, and complications. Lung India. 2020;37(4):316-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
Laganà D, Carrafiello G, Mangini M, Ianniello A, Giorgianni A, Nicotera P, et al. Image-guided percutaneous treatment of abdominal-pelvic abscesses: A 5-year experience. Radiol Med (Torino). 2008;113(7):999-1007. [crossref] [PubMed]
Gervais DA, Ho CH, O’Neill MJ, Arellano RS, Hahn PF, Mueller PR, et al. Recurrent abdominal and pelvic abscesses: incidence, results of repeated percutaneous drainage, and underlying causes in 956 drainages. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(2):463-66. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/59959.17328

Date of Submission: Sep 14, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Oct 21, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Nov 23, 2022
Date of Publishing: Dec 01, 2022

• 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. Yes

• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 20, 2022
• Manual Googling: Nov 15, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Nov 22, 2022 (7%)

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)