Abdominal abscesses are commonly treated using percutaneous abscesses drainage (PAD). Despite PAD becoming commonplace in clinical practice, there are still unanswered questions and absent formal guidelines regarding its use. This narrative review discusses the evolution and different features of PAD, including the imaging modalities used in the process, catheter anatomy and sizes, placement techniques, the quantity of catheter side holes, and factors that determine the length of catheter stay and the usage of antibiotics for treating abdominal abscesses. Based on a retrospective review of the existing literature, this work is presented with an intent of identifying the most efficient design aspects and indications to optimize clinical success when performing PAD. This manuscript shows that there are still many unanswered questions and room for improvement regarding percutaneous drainage of abscesses.

Several studies have correlate improved patient outcomes with increased physician–patient contacts, particularly in chronic diseases. Extending this approach to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care presents a promising means of improving outcomes. At LSU Health Shreveport (LSUHS), a new approach called “STABILITY” (Symptomatic Review during Biologic Therapy) was implemented during infusion therapy visits for IBD patients. These brief 15 min physician–patient interviews aimed to discuss the patients’ current IBD-related symptoms and evaluate the need for any changes in their treatment plan. Our goal was to remove a care gap and prevent intensifying symptoms created by missed appointments and loss of contact. To analyze the effectiveness of the STABILITY approach, a retrospective chart review was conducted on 111 IBD patients (18 with ulcerative colitis, 93 with Crohn’s disease) seen at LSUHS between 2011 and 2022. Since March 2019, STABILITY has been mandatory for all infusion therapy visits. The data collected included patients’ demographics, lab levels for biomarkers (fecal calprotectin, C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rates), hospitalizations, medication changes, and diagnosis dates before and after the implementation of STABILITY. Additionally, voluntary, anonymous infusion patient satisfaction surveys post-STABILITY were used to gather patient responses. In males with IBD, disease severity and hospitalizations were reduced significantly (p = 0.004 and 0.0234, respectively). In females with IBD, disease severity and hospitalizations were also reduced significantly (p = 0.0001 and 0.0072, respectively). In patients with UC and CD, there were significant improvements in disease severity (p = 0.043 and p = 0.0001, respectively), and CD hospitalizations were also improved (p = 0.0013). In males and females with UC, disease severity was marginally and significantly reduced (p = 0.0781 and p = 0.0379, respectively). In males and females with CD, disease severity was significantly reduced (p = 0.0161 and 0.0003, respectively), and CD male and female hospitalizations were also reduced significantly (p = 0.0436 and 0.013). Analyzing of survey responses, we found that the most patients reported improved IBD symptoms (56%), gained understanding of their condition (84%) and were in favor of continuing STABILITY consultations during infusion therapy (93%). To further investigate the impact of STABILITY, we conducted a comparative analysis between IBD patients undergoing STABILITY infusion therapy and LSUHS patients solely on self-injectable biologics. Our paired data analysis showed significant improvements in disease severity in female IBD patients (1.69 ± 0.13 vs. 1.41 ± 0.12, p = 0.0001) and male IBD patients (1.58 ± 0.16 vs. 1.2 ± 0.135, p = 0.004), in UC patients (1.833 ± 0.4.2 vs. 1.444, p = 0.043), in all CD patients (1.59 ± 0.11 vs. 1.29 ± 0.01, p = 0.0001), in male CD patients (1.52 ± 0.167 vs. 1.15 ± 0.15, p = 0.016), in female CD patients (1.66 ± 0.15 vs. 1.4 ± 0.13, p = 0.0003), in female UC patients (1.82 ± 0.32 vs. 1.45 ± 0.31, p = 0.0379), and marginally in male UC patients (p = 0.0781). Similarly, hospitalizations were significantly reduced in CD patients considered in aggregate (0.21 ± 0.04 vs. 0.11 ± 0.03, p = 0.0013), in male IBD patients (0.175 ± 0.06 vs. 0.05 ± 0.035, p = 0.024), in female IBD patients (0.21 ± 0.05 vs. 0.11 ± 0.04, p = 0.0072), in male CD patients (0.18 ± 0.07 vs. 0.06 ± 0.042, p = 0.0436), and in females with CD (0.23 ± 0.06 vs. 0.13 ± 0.04, p = 0.013). Although average values for fecal calprotectin, CRP, and sedimentation rate were frequently reduced after STABILITY interviews, these data did not reach statistical significance. These preliminary findings suggest that STABILITY may be effective in maintaining low disease activity or remission in IBD patients.