Comparative study on the outcome of primary skin closure versus delayed primary skin closure in case of emergency laparotomies

Nitesh Kumar; Pradeep Jaiswal; Sweta Muni; Deepak Pankaj; Vibhuti Bhushan; Ayush Raj; Abhay Kumar; Priyaranjan Kumar

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5607

Authors

Nitesh Kumar Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Pradeep Jaiswal Additional Professor, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Sweta Muni Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Deepak Pankaj
drdeepakpankajigims@gmail.com
Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Vibhuti Bhushan Professor, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Ayush Raj Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Abhay Kumar Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Priyaranjan Kumar Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India

Keywords:

delayed closure, infection, contamination, laparotomy

Abstract

Introduction: One of the most common complications that one can encounter is the surgical site infection (SSI) after any surgical procedures especially after exploratory laparotomy for perforative peritonitis. A surgical wound is considered as infected when there is purulent drainage from the wound. The purpose of the present study was to compare the primary wound closure technique and delayed primary wound closure technique with regard to the rate of wound infection and other complications which are usually associated with the infection like wound dehiscence, stitch sinuses, incisional hernias and duration of hospital stay. Materials and Methodology: 120 participants were randomly divided into two groups with 60 subjects each for primary wound closure and delayed primary wound closure. Data was coded and entered in Microsoft Excel sheet and the data analysis was done using SPSS-17. Association between qualitative variables will be analysed using Chi-square test. Associations between quantitative variables were analysed using independent sample t-test. Non parametric tests were if whenever necessary. When a p value of less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sabiston Textbook of Surgery - The Biological Basis Of Modern Surgical Practise. 19th ed. Elsevier Saunders. Philadelphia; 2012:283-288,1108-1109.

Gurlyik G. Factors affecting disruption of surgical abdominal incisions in early postoperative period Ulus Travma Derg. 2001;7:96-9.

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.

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.

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.

Raahave D, Friis-Møller A, Bjerre-Jepsen K, ThiisKnudsen 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.