Original article / research
Tamponade Dressing versus Regular Dressing Following Incision and Drainage of Perianal Abscess: A Prospective Observational Study
PC01-PC04
Correspondence
Dr. S Jayakanthan,
Postgraduate Student, Department of General Surgery, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Chennai-600044, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: bhavyasinha108@gmail.com
Introduction: Perianal abscess is a common anorectal emergency typically managed by Incision and Drainage (I&D). However, the optimal postoperative dressing method remains controversial, with limited evidence comparing tamponade dressing and regular dressing regarding wound healing and fistula formation.
Aim: To compare tamponade dressing and regular dressing following I&D of perianal abscess with respect to postoperative pain severity, wound healing, healing duration, postoperative complications, and fistula-in-ano formation.
Materials and Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery of Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, from November 2024 to April 2026. A total of 62 adult patients with primary perianal abscesses were included and equally categorised into tamponade dressing (n=31) and regular dressing (n=31) groups. All patients underwent I&D under appropriate anaesthesia. Outcomes assessed included postoperative pain severity, wound healing status, healing duration, postoperative complications, and fistula-in-ano during follow-up. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. Independent samples t-test, Pearson’s Chi-square test, and Fisher’s-exact test were applied as appropriate. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The mean age of participants was 42.60±15.65 years and 36 (58.1%) were males. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. Mild postoperative pain was observed in 15 (48.4%) patients in the tamponade group and 9 (29.0%) in the regular dressing group, while severe pain occurred in 4 (12.9%) and 8 (25.8%) patients, respectively (p=0.225). Healthy wound healing was noted in 24 (77.4%) patients receiving tamponade dressing compared with 17 (54.8%) receiving regular dressing (p=0.163). Healing within two weeks occurred in 14 (45.2%) and 8 (25.8%) patients, respectively, whereas healing beyond four weeks occurred in 5 (16.1%) and 12 (38.7%) patients. Healing duration showed a significant trend favouring tamponade dressing (p=0.038). The overall postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the tamponade dressing group than in the regular dressing group (3.2% vs. 29.0%, p=0.006). Fistula-in-ano developed in 3 (9.7%) patients receiving tamponade dressing compared with 8 (25.8%) patients receiving regular dressing (p=0.096).
Conclusion: Tamponade dressing demonstrated a lower numerical incidence of fistula formation; however, the difference was not statistically significant.