DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20194429

Primary versus delayed wound closure technique in laparotomy wound of perforation peritonitis

M. N. Sasikumar, Sam Christy Mammen

Abstract


Background: There is no consensus on the ideal techniques for wound closure of contaminated wounds. Multiple techniques have been proposed. The aim of the study is to compare the wound infection rates of laparotomy wounds in perforation peritonitis in primary and delayed primary wound closure. The purpose is comparison of primary wound closure and delayed primary wound closure with respect to rate of wound infection and other associated complications like wound dehiscence, stitch sinuses, incisional hernias and duration of hospital stay.

Methods: This study included 106 patients, divided into two groups, primary closure (A) in which wound was primarily closed and secondary closure (B) in which wound was left open without suturing and saline irrigation was given and were sutured once the wound is clean and culture sterile. The wound infection was assessed using Southampton scoring system.

Results: A total of 106 patients, 60 (56.6%) males and 46 (43.4%) females were included. Group A, 53 patients with 54.7% males and 45.3% females and in B, 53 patients with 58.5% males and 41.5% females. The mean age in A was 38.4 11.8while that in B 37.02 12.59. Group A had an infection rate of 77.4%whereas group B had only 34%. The duration of hospital stay for B was 9.72 2.57 and for group A, 11.74 2.87days.

Conclusions: The delayed primary closure is the optimal technique for wound closure in contaminated wounds like perforation peritonitis as it reduces wound infection rates and hospital stay.


Keywords


Primary closure, Delayed primary closure, Wound infection

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hedrick TL, Sawyer RG, Hennessy SA, Turrentine FE, Friel CM. Can We Define Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Surgery?. Surgical Infect. 2014;15(4):372-6.

Haridas M, Malangoni MA. Predictive factors for surgical site infection in general surge. Surg. 2008;144(4):496-503.

Greisman HC. Wound management and medical organization in the Civil War. Surg Clinics North Am. 1984;64(4):625-38.

Fukuda H, Morikane K, Kuroki M, Kawai S, Hayashi K, Ieiri Y, et al. Impact of surgical site infections after open and laparoscopic colon and rectal surgeries on postoperative resource consumption. Infect. 2012;40(6):649-59.

Kusachi S, Kashimura N, Konishi T, Shimizu J, Kusunoki M, Oka M, et al. Length of stay and cost for surgical site infection after abdominal and cardiac surgery in Japanese hospitals: multi-center surveillance. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2012;13(4):257-65.

Andersson AE, Bergh I, Karlsson J, Nilsson K. Patients’ experiences of acquiring a deep surgical site infection: an interview study. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(9):711-7.

Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97-134.

Poole D, Chieregato A, Langer M, Viaggi B, Cingolani E, Malacarne P, et al. Systematic review of the literature and evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis in trauma: results from an Italian consensus of experts. 2014;9(11).

Murtaza B, Khan AN, Sharif MA, Malik IB, Mahmood A. Modified midline abdominal wound closure technique in complicated/high risk laparotomies. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20(1):37-41.

Gurjar V, Halvadia BM, Bharaney RP, Ajwani V, Shah SM, Rai S, et al. Study of two techniques for midline laparotomy fascial wound closure. Indian J Surg. 2014;76(2):91-4.

van't Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J. Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg. 2002;89(11):1350-6.

Khan KI, Mahmood S, Akmal M, Waqas A. Comparison of rate of surgical wound infection, length of hospital stay and patient convenience in complicated appendicitis between primary closure and delayed primary closure. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(6):596-8.

Duttaroy DD, Jitendra J, Duttaroy B, Bansal U, Dhameja P, Patel G, et al. Management strategy for dirty abdominal incisions: primary or delayed primary closure?. A randomized trial. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2009;10(2):129–36.

Siribumrungwong B, Noorit P, Wilasrusmee C, Thakkinstian A. A systematic review of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure contaminated abdominal wounds. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9(1):49.

Nasib G, Shah SI, Bashir EA. Laparotomy for peritonitis: primary or delayed primary closure? J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad Jamc. 2015;27(3):543–5.

Aziz I, Baloch Q, Zaheer F, Iqbal M. Delayed Primary wound closure versus primary wound closure - a dilemma in contaminated abdominal surgeries. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2015;14(03):5.

Singh PK, Saxena N, Poddar D, Gohil RK, Patel G. Comparative study of wound healing in primary versus delayed primary closure in contaminated abdominal surgery. Hell J Surg. 2016;88(5):314–20.

Brown SE, Allen HH, Robins RN. The use of delayed primary wound closure in preventing wound infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;127(7):713–7.

Cohn SM, Giannotti G, Ong AW, Varela JE, Shatz DV, McKenney MG, et al. Prospective randomized trial of two wound management strategies for dirty abdominal wounds. Ann Surg. 2001;233(3):409–13.

Bhangu A, Singh P, Lundy J, Bowley DM. Systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary vs delayed primary skin closure in contaminated and dirty abdominal incisions. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(8):779–86.

Ussiri EV, Mkony CA, Aziz MR. Sutured and open clean-contaminated and contaminated laparotomy wounds at Muhimbili National Hospital: a comparison of complications. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2004;9(2).

Siribumrungwong B, Chantip A, Noorit P, Wilasrumee C, Ungpinitpong W, Chotiga P, et al. Comparison of superficial surgical site infection between delayed primary and primary wound closures in ruptured appendicitis. Asian J Surg. 2014;37(3):120–4.

Agrawal V, Joshi MK, Gupta AK, Jain BK. Wound outcome following primary and delayed primary skin closure techniques after laparotomy for non-traumatic ileal perforation: a randomized clinical trial. Indian J Surg. 2017;79(2):124–30.

Ashraf SM, Mehdi SH, Urner MF, Muttagi A. Comparative study of wound healing in primary versus delayed primary closure in contaminated abdominal surgery. Pak J Surg. 2004;25(9).

Duttaroy DD, Jitendra J, Duttaroy B, Bansal U, Dhameja P, Patel G, et al. Management strategy for dirty abdominal incisions: primary or delayed primary closure?. A randomized trial. Surg Infect. 2009;10(2):129–36.

Ahmed A, Hanif M, Iqbal Y. A comparison of primary closure versus delayed primary closure in contaminated abdominal surgery in terms of surgical site infection. J Postgraduate Med Institute. 2013;27 (04):6.

Riou JPA, Cohen JR, Johnson H. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg. 1992;163(3):324–30.

Badragoudra J, Narasanagi B, Vallabha T, Sindagikar V. Comparative study of delayed primary closure versus primary closure of skin in contaminated and dirty abdominal wounds/incision.

Raahave D, Friis-Møller A, Bjerre-Jepsen K, Thiis-Knudsen J, Rasmussen LB. The infective dose of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in postoperative wound sepsis. Arch Surg Chic Ill 1960. 1986;121(8):924–9.

Pettigrew RA. Delayed primary wound closure in gangrenous and perforated appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1981;68(9):635–8.

Stone HH, Hester TR. Topical antibiotic and delayed primary closure in the management of contaminated surgical incisions. J Surg Res. 1972;12(2):70–6.