Prospective Randomized Trial of Two Wound Management Strategies for Dirty Abdominal Wounds

ObjectiveTo determine the optimal method of wound closure for dirty abdominal wounds. Summary Background DataThe rate of wound infection for dirty abdominal wounds is approximately 40%, but the optimal method of wound closure remains controversial. Three randomized studies comparing delayed primary closure (DPC) with primary closure (PC) have not conclusively shown any advantage of one method over the other in terms of wound infection. MethodsFifty-one patients with dirty abdominal wounds related to perforated appendicitis, other perforated viscus, traumatic injuries more than 4 hours old, or intraabdominal abscesses were enrolled. Patients were stratified by cause (appendicitis vs. all other causes) and prospectively randomized to one of two wound management strategies: E/DPC (wound packed with saline-soaked gauze, evaluated 3 days after surgery for closure the next day if appropriate) or PC. In the E/DPC group, wounds that were not pristine when examined on postoperative day 3 were not closed and daily dressing changes were instituted. Wounds were considered infected if purulence discharged from the wound, or possibly infected if signs of inflammation or a serous discharge developed. ResultsTwo patients were withdrawn because they died less than 72 hours after surgery. The wound infection rate was greater in the PC group than in the E/DPC group. Lengths of hospital stay and hospital charges were similar between the two groups. ConclusionA strategy of DPC for appropriate dirty abdominal wounds 4 days after surgery produced a decreased wound infection rate compared with PC without increasing the length of stay or cost.

[1]  M. West,et al.  Wound Management in Perforated Appendicitis , 1999, The American surgeon.

[2]  Teresa C. Horan,et al.  Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999 , 1999, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[3]  D. Nathwani,et al.  What is the value of preventing postoperative infections? , 1998, New horizons.

[4]  S. Pirwitz HICPAC guidelines for isolation precautions: Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. , 1997, American journal of infection control.

[5]  J. V. Petersen,et al.  Estimated costs of postoperative wound infections , 1994, Epidemiology and Infection.

[6]  T. Berne,et al.  Prospective randomized study of two different doses of clindamycin admixed with gentamicin in the management of perforated appendicitis. , 1993, The American surgeon.

[7]  B. Kinosian,et al.  The economic impact of infections. An analysis of hospital costs and charges in surgical patients with cancer. , 1993, Archives of surgery.

[8]  P. Tam,et al.  Delayed primary wound closure using skin tapes for advanced appendicitis in children. A prospective, controlled study. , 1992, Archives of surgery.

[9]  J. Riou,et al.  Factors influencing wound dehiscence. , 1992, American journal of surgery.

[10]  R. Garibaldi,et al.  Risk factors for postoperative infection. , 1991, The American journal of medicine.

[11]  H. Ellis,et al.  Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. , 1982, British medical journal.

[12]  R. A. Pettigrew Delayed primary wound closure in gangrenous and perforated appendicitis , 1981, The British journal of surgery.

[13]  W. Macon,et al.  Abdominal wound dehiscence and evisceration: contributing factors and improved mortality. , 1980, The American surgeon.

[14]  P. Cruse,et al.  The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. , 1980, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[15]  J. Niinikoski,et al.  Wound infections in abdominal surgery. A prospective study on 696 operations. , 1980, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica.

[16]  C. Stoddard,et al.  Abdominal wound healing: a prospective clinical study. , 1977, British medical journal.

[17]  R. Grace,et al.  Incidence of incisional hernia following dehiscence of the abdominal wound. , 1973, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[18]  A. Schantz,et al.  Wound infections after appendicectomy. I. A controlled trial on the prophylactic efficacy of topical ampicillin in non-perforated appendicitis. II. A controlled trial on the prophylactic efficacy of delayed primary suture and topical ampicillin in perforated appendicitis. , 1972, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica.

[19]  J. Grosfeld,et al.  Prevention of Wound Infection in Perforated Appendicitis: Experience with Delayed Primary Wound Closure , 1968, Annals of surgery.

[20]  B. B. Roe,et al.  Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Drainage, Technical and Physiological Considerations , 1964 .

[21]  F. Bérard,et al.  POSTOPERATIVE WOUND INFECTIONS: THE INFLUENCE OF ULTRAVIOLET IRRADIATION OF THE OPERATING ROOM AND OF VARIOUS OTHER FACTORS. , 1964, Annals of surgery.

[22]  H. Wilson Secondary Suture of War Wounds: A Clinical Study of 305 Secondary Closures. , 1945, Annals of surgery.

[23]  A. A. Miles Epidemiology of Wound Infection. , 1944 .

[24]  F. A. Coller,et al.  THE DELAYED CLOSURE OF CONTAMINATED WOUNDS A PRELIMINARY REPORT , 1940, Annals of surgery.

[25]  D. Wilkie Observations on MORTALITY IN ACUTE APPENDICULAR DISEASE * , 1931, British medical journal.

[26]  H. Hepburn,et al.  DELAYED PRIMARY SUTURE OF WOUNDS , 1919, British medical journal.