Purulent Skin and Soft Tissue Infections, Challenging the Practice of Incision and Drainage: A Scoping Review.

Aim: To generate a landscape of the current knowledge in the interventional management and outcomes of purulent skin and soft tissue infections.
Design: This study is a scoping review.
Methods: Electronic searches were undertaken using CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, British Nursing Index, Science Direct, the National Health Service knowledge and library hub, ClinicalTrials.gov, and MedNar. The population, concept, context framework, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews were utilised, supporting a rigorous appraisal and synthesis of literature. Data Sources . The initial search and synthesis of literature were completed in January 2022 with repeat searches completed in March 2022 and July 2023. There were no imposed chronological parameters placed on the returned literature.
Results: Nineteen papers were reviewed. Incision and drainage with primary closure, needle aspiration, loop drainage, catheter drainage, and suction drainage are viable adjuncts or alternatives to the traditional surgical management of skin and soft tissue abscesses.
Conclusion: Despite the empirically favourable alternatives to the incision and drainage technique demonstrated, this does not appear to be driving a change in clinical practice. Future research must now look to mixed and qualitative evidence to understand the causative mechanisms of incision and drainage and its ritualistic practice. Implications . Ritual surgical practices must be challenged if nurses are to improve the treatment and management of this patient group. This will lead to further practice innovation. Impact : This study explored the challenges posed to patients, clinicians, nurses, and stakeholders, resulting from the ritualistic practice of the incision and drainage technique in purulent skin or soft tissue abscesses. Empirically and holistically viable alternatives were identified, impacting all identified entities and recommending a wider holistic study. Reporting Method . Adherence to EQUATOR guidance was achieved through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2023 Liam Stout et al.)