Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:53:19.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National prospective cohort study of peritonsillar abscess managementand outcomes: the Multicentre Audit of Quinsies study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2016

ENT Trainee Research Collaborative – West Midlands
ENT Trainee Research Collaborative – West Midlands
Affiliation:
ENT Trainee Research Collaborative – West Midlands*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To investigate variations in the management and outcomes of peritonsillarabscesses, and to develop a trainee collaborative network in the UK.

Methods:

Data were collected prospectively on suspected peritonsillar abscess casespresenting over a 2-month period at 42 participating secondary care centres,covering a population of 16 million. The primary outcome was an adverseevent at 30 days, defined as re-presentation or re-drainage.

Results:

Eighteen per cent of the 325 cases experienced an adverse event. Follow-updata were valid for 90 per cent of cases. Regression analyses showed asignificant reduction in adverse events in the 12 per cent of patients whowere discharged within 12 hours, and there was no significant increase inadverse events for the 70 per cent receiving corticosteroids.

Conclusion:

Out-patient management of peritonsillar abscess is not commonly practised inthe UK. Corticosteroid usage is common and appears safe. This studydemonstrates that trainees working in collaboration can effectively deliverprospective multicentre cohort studies in the UK.

Keywords

Peritonsillar AbscessCorticosteroidsOutpatientsClinical Audit
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 768 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Health and Social Care Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care, England - 2012–13: Diagnosis. In: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB12566/hosp-epis-stat-admi-diag-2012-13-tab.xlsx [29 August 2013]Google Scholar
2 Millar, KR, Johnson, DW, Drummond, D, Kellner, JD. Suspected peritonsillar abscess in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2007;23:431–8Google Scholar
3 Chau, JK, Seikaly, HR, Harris, JR, Villa-Roel, C, Brick, C, Rowe, BH. Corticosteroids in peritonsillar abscess treatment: a blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial. Laryngoscope 2014;124:97–103 Google Scholar
4 Al, Yaghchi C, Cruise, A, Kapoor, K, Singh, A, Harcourt, J. Out-patient management of patients with a peritonsillar abscess. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:52–5Google Scholar
5 Garas, G, Ifeacho, S, Cetto, R, Arora, A, Tolley, N. Prospective audit on the outpatient management of patients with a peritonsillar abscess: closing the loop: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 2011;36:174–9Google Scholar
6 Ozbek, C, Aygenc, E, Tuna, EU, Selcuk, A, Ozdem, C. Use of steroids in the treatment of peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:439–42Google Scholar
7 Hardman, JC, McCulloch, NA, Nankivell, P. Do corticosteroids improve outcomes in peritonsillar abscess? Laryngoscope 2015;125:537–8Google Scholar
8 Pinkney, TD, Calvert, M, Bartlett, DC, Gheorghe, A, Redman, V, Dowswell, G et al. Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial). BMJ 2013;347:f4305Google Scholar
9 National Surgical Research Collaborative. Multicentre observational study of performance variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy. Br J Surg 2013;100:1240–52Google Scholar
10 Von, Elm E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gøtzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–9Google Scholar
11 ENT Trainee Research Collaboratives Network - UK. In: www.enttrc.com [10 May 2016]Google Scholar
12 Public Health England. Tools and data. In: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=39403 [20 January 2015]Google Scholar
13 Public Health England. Eastern Region Public Health Observatory. Acute Hospitals Catchment Populations 2009. In: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20151111133043/http://www.erpho.org.uk/download.aspx?urlid=21919&urlt=1 [11 January 2015]Google Scholar
14 About Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. In: http://www.cardiffandvaleuhbcharity.org/about-cardiff-vale-uhb [10 May 2016]Google Scholar
15 Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Northern Ireland. Update to estimate of hospital catchment populations. In: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/estimate-hospital-catchment-populations.pdf [11 January 2015]Google Scholar
16 Wikstén, J, Blomgren, K, Eriksson, T, Guldfred, L, Bratt, M, Pitkäranta, A. Variations in treatment of peritonsillar abscess in four Nordic countries. Acta Otolaryngol 2014;134:813–17Google Scholar
17 Health and Social Care Information Centre. Accident and Emergency Attendances in England - 2012–13. In: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13464 [28 January 2015]Google Scholar
18 Biswas, D, Rafferty, A, Jassar, P. Night emergency cover for ENT in England: a national survey. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:899–902 Google Scholar
19 Radford, P, Unadkat, S, Rollin, M, Tolley, N. Disinfection of flexible fibre-optic endoscopes out-of-hours: confidential telephone survey of ENT units in England – 10 years on. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:489–93Google Scholar
20 Mehanna, HM, Al-Bahnasawi, L, White, A. National audit of the management of peritonsillar abscess. Postgrad Med J 2002;78:545–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Chung, JH, Lee, YC, Shin, SY, Eun, YG. Risk factors for recurrence of peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 2014;128:1084–8Google Scholar