Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Management of Tubo-ovarian Abscess: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveTo compare the success rate, complications, and hospital length-of-stay of 3 modalities of minimally invasive management of tubo-ovarian abscesses (TOAs): laparoscopy, ultrasound-guided drainage, and computed tomography–guided drainage.Data SourcesElectronic-based search in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: “minimally invasive surgical procedures,” “drainage,” “abscess,” “tubo-ovarian,” “ovarian diseases,” and “fallopian tube diseases.”Methods of Study SelectionOf the 831 articles in the initial results, 10 studies were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review.Tabulation, Integration, and ResultsA total of 975 patients were included in our study; 107 (11%) had laparoscopic drainage procedures, and 406 (42%) had image-guided (ultrasound or computed tomography) drainage of TOAs. Image-guided TOA drainage had higher success rates (90%–100%) than laparoscopic drainage (89%–96%) and the use of antibiotic treatment alone (65%–83%). Patients treated with image-guided drainage had no complications (for up to 6 months of follow-up) and shorter lengths of hospital stay (0–3 days on average) compared with laparoscopic drainage (5–12 days) or conservative management with antibiotics alone (7–9 days).ConclusionAlthough conservative management of TOAs with antibiotics alone remains first-line, our review indicates that better outcomes in the management of TOA were achieved by minimally invasive approach compared with conservative treatment with antibiotics only. Of the minimally invasive techniques, image-guided drainage of TOAs provided the highest success rates, the fewest complications, and the shortest hospital stays compared with laparoscopy. The low magnitude of evidence in the included studies calls for further randomized trials. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (register, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO;CRD 42020170345).