The management and outcome of lacerations in urban children

Surgical Specialty Consultation for Pediatric Facial Laceration Repair: An American and Canadian Survey

OBJECTIVE

We sought to describe patterns of and indications for surgical specialty consultation for facial laceration repair in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter survey of PED leadership throughout the United States and Canada evaluating the practice patterns of surgical specialty consultation for patients presenting for facial lacerations requiring repair. We measured demographics of PEDs, factors influencing the decision to obtain a surgical specialty consultation, and the presence and components of consultation guidelines. Factors related to consultation were ranked on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Not at all important, 5 = Extremely important). We evaluated relationships between reported rates of surgical specialty consultation and PED region, annual PED volume, and reported factors associated with PED consultation.

RESULTS

Survey responses were received from 67/124 (54%) queried PEDs. The median self-reported rate of surgical specialty consultation for facial lacerations was 10% and ranged from 1% to 70%, with resident physicians performing the repair 71% of the time a subspecialist was consulted. There was regional variability in specialty consultation, with the highest and lowest rate in the Midwest and Canada, respectively ( P = 0.03). The top 4 influential factors prompting consultation with the highest percentage of responses of "Extremely Important" or "Very Important" were: discretion of the physician caring for the patient (95%), parental preference (39%), limited PED resources (32%), and patient requires sedation (32%). Surgical specialty consult guidelines were used in only 6% of PEDs with consensus that depth necessitating more than 2-layer repair or involvement of critical structures should prompt consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specialty usage in the management of patients who present with facial lacerations to PEDs has significant variation related to patient, provider, and department-level factors that influence the decision to consult. Lack of consult guidelines represent a potential opportunity to standardize care delivery to this common presentation.

Antibiotic treatment of hand wounds in children: Contribution of a decision tree

BACKGROUND

The need for prophylactic antibiotic treatment of hand wounds in children requiring emergency surgical exploration is still controversial. Our starting hypothesis was that the absence of prophylactic antibiotic treatment in this setting (as specified by a decision tree) does not increase the likelihood of surgical site infection.

METHODS

A decision tree for antibiotic prescription was developed by a working group in compliance with the guidelines issued by the French High Authority for Health, as part of a clinical pathway. One injection of intravenous antibiotics was prescribed for bite injuries, open joint injuries, injuries left untreated for more than 24 h, and suspected contaminated wounds. All children admitted for surgical treatment of a hand wound between July 2018 and March 2023 were included. Demographic data, antibiotic prescription and onset of postoperative surgical site infection were recorded.

RESULTS

The 238 children included had a mean age of 8 ± 4.8 years; 102 received antibiotics and 136 did not. Eleven children (4.6%) had superficial surgical site infection requiring no revision surgery or antibiotic therapy. 206 children (86.5%) were treated following the decision tree. Ten had superficial surgical site infection: 3 received antibiotics (3.7% of the 80 who were treated) and 7 did not (5.5% of the 126 not treated) (p = 0.74). Thirty-two patients (13.5%) were off-protocol, only 1 of whom received antibiotics for superficial surgical site infection.

DISCUSSION

Applying the decision tree standardized the prescription of antibiotics in hand wounds, was not associated with a significantly greater rate of surgical site infection, and avoided exposure to antibiotics for 61.1% of the children, thus limiting potential adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Time to surgery for open hand injuries and the risk of surgical site infection: a prospective multicentre cohort study

Whether delaying surgery increases the risk of infection in open hand injuries is an important but unresolved topic. This prospective cohort study included 983 consecutive adults with open hand injuries treated surgically over 1 year. The risk ratio (RR) for surgical site infection was estimated by logistic regression. The median time from injury to surgery was 20 hours (range 4-90). Forty-one patients (4%) developed an infection. The risk of infection was not affected by the time to surgery (adjusted risk ratio 1.0 [95% CI: 1.0 to 1.0]) or preoperative antibiotics (adjusted risk ratio 1.8 [95% CI: 0.2 to 13]), which were provided to 95% of patients. Skin loss increased the risk of infection (adjusted risk ratio 2.6 [95% CI: 1.3 to 5.0]). Delaying surgery for open hand injuries by 4 days does not appear to increase the risk of surgical site infection. Level of evidence: II.

Complications following chin laceration reparation using tissue adhesive compared to suture in children

BACKGROUND

Tissue adhesive is widely used in the emergency department to repair minor lacerations but there exists a debate as to whether it should be used for chin lacerations. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of wound dehiscence of chin lacerations repaired with tissue adhesive in comparison to sutures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review including all children requiring a facial laceration reparation in a single tertiary care paediatric hospital. The primary outcome was wound dehiscence in the 30 days following reparation, comparing the use of tissue adhesive and sutures. The independent variable of interest was the use of tissue adhesive vs suture. A random sample of charts was reviewed in duplicate to insure reliability of the chart review.

RESULTS

Among the 2044 children presenting with a facial laceration requiring an intervention, 1804 (88%) were repaired using tissue adhesive. The laceration was located on the chin in 360 (18%) of patients. The use of tissue adhesive was not statistically associated with a higher risk of dehiscence for all facial lacerations (difference: 0.2; 95%CI: -1.9 to 0.8%), nor for chin lacerations (difference 2.2%; 95%CI: -7.5 to 4.4%). However, the probability of dehiscence was higher for chin laceration in comparison to other localizations (difference of 1.6%; 95%CI: 0.5-3.6%).

CONCLUSION

While the rate of dehiscence was higher for chin lacerations compared to other facial localizations, the risk of dehiscence was not statistically different for chin laceration repaired with tissue adhesive or sutures.

Making better wound management decisions

Clinicians make wound management decisions based on scientific research of varying quality as well as personal and observed habits, anecdotal evidence, and even misinterpreted data. This article examines some common traumatic wound management topics and discusses appropriate decision-making for wound management.

Laceration Management

BACKGROUND

Traumatic lacerations to the skin represent a fairly common reason for seeking emergency department care. Although the incidence of lacerations has decreased over the past decades, traumatic cutaneous lacerations remain a common reason for patients to seek emergency department care.

OBJECTIVE

Innovations in laceration management have the potential to improve patient experience with this common presentation.

DISCUSSION

Studies have confirmed that delays in wound closure rarely confer increased rates of infection, although comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic renal failure, obesity, human immunodeficiency virus, smoking, and cancer should be considered. Antibiotics should be reserved for high-risk wounds, such as those with comorbidities, gross contamination, involvement of deeper structures, stellate wounds, and selected bite wounds. Topical anesthetics, which are painless to apply, have a role in select populations. In most studies, absorbable sutures perform similarly to nonabsorbable sutures and do not require revisit for removal. Novel atraumatic closure devices and expanded use of tissue adhesives for wounds under tension further erode the primacy of regular sutures in wound closure. Maintaining a moist wound environment with occlusive dressings is more important than previously thought. Most topical wound agents are of limited benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent innovations in wound closure are allowing emergency physicians to shift toward painless, atraumatic, and rapid closure of lacerations.

Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment

PURPOSE

To identify which patients and canines are involved in dog bites of the head and neck, and how they impact health systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single center, retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2012 to June 2013 in an academic, tertiary care center situated between multiple suburban and urban communities. Patients were identified by queried search for all bite-related diagnoses codes.

RESULTS

334 unique dog bites were identified, of which 101 involved the head and neck. The mean patient age was 15.1±18.1years. Of the more than 8 different breeds identified, one-third were caused by pit bull terriers and resulted in the highest rate of consultation (94%) and had 5 times the relative rate of surgical intervention. Unlike all other breeds, pit bull terriers were relatively more likely to attack an unknown individual (+31%), and without provocation (+48%). Injuries of the head and neck had an average follow-up of 1.26±2.4 visits, and average specialty follow-up of 3.1±3.5 visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients most likely to suffer dog bite injuries of the head and neck are children. Although a number of dog breeds were identified, the largest group were pit bull terriers, whose resultant injuries were more severe and resulted from unprovoked, unknown dogs. More severe injuries required a greater number of interventions, a greater number of inpatient physicians, and more outpatient follow-up encounters. Healthcare utilization and costs associated with dog bites warrant further investigation.

Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury

BACKGROUND

Acute traumatic wounds are one of the common reasons why people present to the emergency department. Primary closure has traditionally been reserved for traumatic wounds presenting within six hours of injury and considered 'clean' by the attending surgeon, with the rest undergoing delayed primary closure as a means of controlling wound infection. Primary closure has the potential benefit of rapid wound healing but poses the potential threat of increased wound infection. There is currently no evidence to guide clinical decision-making on the best timing for closure of traumatic wounds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect on time to healing of primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. To explore the adverse effects of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this first update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing primary closure with delayed closure of non bite traumatic wounds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated the results of the searches against the inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

MAIN RESULTS

Since no studies met the inclusion criteria, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no systematic evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the timing for closure of traumatic wounds. There is a need for robust research to investigate the effect of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours of injury.

A retrospective observational study comparing hair apposition technique, suturing and stapling for scalp lacerations

Aim

Scalp lacerations are commonly encountered in patients presenting to emergency department with trauma. Lacerations are repaired with suturing, stapling, adhesive tapes, and tissue adhesives. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of suturing, stapling, and hair apposition techniques used in repair of scalp lacerations in patients who presented to emergency department with scalp laceration.

Materials and method

After obtaining approval of local ethics committee, we examined the effects of the three technique used to repair scalp lacerations on wound healing, complication rate, and patient satisfaction by recording data. Categorical variables were expressed as n and %. X² test was used for statistical analysis. A p value less than 0.05 was accepted statistically significant.

Results

Our study included a total of 134 patients of whom were treated 37 (27.6%) with hair apposition technique 49, 48 (35.8%) with suturing, and (36.6%) with stapling. There was a significant difference between the scalp repair technique and 7th and 15th day patient satisfaction rates in favor of the hair apposition technique (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between the scalp repair technique and cosmetic problems after 15 days (p < 0.05). Cosmetic problems 15 days after the procedure were significantly lower in the hair apposition technique.

Conclusion

In patients presenting to emergency departments with linear scalp laceration suturing, stapling, and hair apposition techniques can be safely applied. However, hair apposition technique has the advantages of being more satisfying, and having lower cosmetic problem and complication rates compared with other techniques.

Traumatic lacerations: what are the risks for infection and has the 'golden period' of laceration care disappeared?

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors associated with infection and traumatic lacerations and to see if a relationship exists between infection and time to wound closure after injury.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with traumatic lacerations at three diverse emergency departments were prospectively enrolled and 27 variables were collected at the time of treatment. Patients were followed for 30 days to determine the development of a wound infection and desire for scar revision.

RESULTS

2663 patients completed follow-up and 69 (2.6%, 95% CI 2.0% to 3.3%) developed infection. Infected wounds were more likely to receive a worse cosmetic rating and more likely to be considered for scar revision (RR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.9). People with diabetes (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5), lower extremity lacerations (RR 4.1, 95% CI 2.5 to 6.8), contaminated lacerations (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.4) and lacerations greater than 5 cm (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6 to 5.2) were more likely to develop an infection. There were no differences in the infection rates for lacerations closed before 3% (95% CI 2.3% to 3.8%) or after 1.2% (95% CI 0.03% to 6.4%) 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes, wound contamination, length greater than 5 cm and location on the lower extremity are important risk factors for wound infection. Time from injury to wound closure is not as important as previously thought. Improvements in irrigation and decontamination over the past 30 years may have led to this change in outcome.

The impact of wound age on the infection rate of simple lacerations repaired in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

The influence of wound age on the risk of infection in simple lacerations repaired in the emergency department (ED) has not been well studied. It has traditionally been taught that there is a "golden period" beyond which lacerations are at higher risk of infection and therefore should not be closed primarily. The proposed cutoff for this golden period has been highly variable (3-24h in surgical textbooks). Our objective is to answer the following research question: are wounds closed via primary repair after the golden period at increased risk for infection?

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases as well as bibliographies of relevant articles. We included studies that enrolled ED patients with lacerations repaired by primary closure. Exclusion: (1) delayed primary repair or secondary closure, (2) wounds requiring intra-operative repair, skin graft, drains, or extensive debridement, and (3) grossly contaminated or infected at presentation. We compared the outcome of wound infection in two groups of early versus delayed presentations (based on the cut-offs selected by the original articles). We used "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) criteria to assess the quality of the included trials.

RESULTS

418 studies were identified. Four trials enrolling 3724 patients in aggregate met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was low. The infection rate in the wounds that presented with delay ranged from 1.4% to 32%. One study with the smallest sample size (only 19 delayed wounds), which only enrolled lacerations to hand and forearm, showed higher rate of infection in patients with delayed (older than 12h) wounds (relative risk of infection: 4.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.9-12.0). The infection rate in delayed wound groups in the remaining three studies was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The existing evidence does not support the existence of a golden period nor does it support the role of wound age on infection rate in simple lacerations.

Antibiotic prescribing practices of emergency physicians and patient expectations for uncomplicated lacerations

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic antibiotics have not been found to have a benefit in the setting of uncomplicated lacerations. We evaluated the proportion of patients with uncomplicated lacerations who are prescribed prophylactic antibiotics in the emergency department (ED), factors that physicians considered when prescribing antibiotics, and factors associated with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Adults and children presenting to 10 academic EDs with acute lacerations were enrolled. Enrolled patients were interviewed before and after their physician encounter in the ED and 2 weeks later. Physicians were interviewed in the ED after the patient encounter about factors that influenced their management decisions, including their perceptions of patients' expectations. We included patients with uncomplicated lacerations (without contamination, infection, bone, tendon, or joint involvement) for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 436 patients enrolled, 260 had uncomplicated lacerations, and of these, 55 (21%) were treated with antibiotics in the ED or by prescription. Physicians were more likely to use antibiotics when the wound was more than 8 hours old, involved a puncture or amputation, and when the patient lacked medical insurance. A treatment course of 7 days or greater was given to 24 of 45 patients (53%) receiving outpatient prescriptions. Patient satisfaction was not associated with antibiotic use.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotics were used for about one fifth of ED patients with uncomplicated lacerations despite a lack of evidence for efficacy.

Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury

BACKGROUND

Acute traumatic wounds are one of the common reasons why people present to the emergency department. Primary closure has traditionally been reserved for traumatic wounds presenting within six hours of injury and considered 'clean' by the attending surgeon, with the rest undergoing delayed primary closure as a means of controlling wound infection. Primary closure has the potential benefit of rapid wound healing but poses the potential threat of increased wound infection. There is currently no evidence to guide clinical decision-making on the best timing for closure of traumatic wounds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect on time to healing of primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. To explore the adverse effects of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 14 July 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 13, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 27); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 14 July 2011). There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing primary closure with delayed closure of non bite traumatic wounds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated the results of the searches against the inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

MAIN RESULTS

Since no studies met the inclusion criteria, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no systematic evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the timing for closure of traumatic wounds. There is a need for robust research to investigate the effect of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours of injury.

A prospective study into the demographics and treatment of paediatric facial lacerations

To evaluate the demographics and treatment of facial lacerations occurring in a paediatric patient cohort. We undertook a prospective study of 106 children who sustained a soft tissue facial injury and who presented to an Accident and Emergency department in a UK district general hospital supporting a population of 750,000. Approximately 31,000 are dependent children between the age of 0-12 years. Our results show that the majority of paediatric patients who sustained a facial laceration were male (62%). The frequency of this injury was greatest amongst males across all age groups. The majority of children above 3 years of age sustained their injury outdoors. The peak time for injury varied for different age groups. The 0-3 year olds sustained the highest incidence of injuries around 17:00 h. A bi-modal time pattern was seen in the 4-6 year age group, initially at 12:00 h with a second peak at 17:00 h. The most frequent aetiology was play. A significant finding was that 8% of the injuries that were managed resulted from a dog bite. Almost 50% of children above 4 years of age, who required primary closure of their laceration, were able to tolerate their treatment being performed under local anaesthesia. The pattern of facial lacerations in our study supports the results of previous studies. Our data has provided further insight into the presentation of these injuries. These studies are valuable in targeted injury prevention programmes aimed at potentially reducing the nature, incidence and severity of facial soft tissue trauma in children in the UK.

Improved documentation of wound care with a structured encounter form in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Accurate and complete documentation may enhance reimbursement and compliance with financial intermediary regulations, protect against litigation, and improve patient care. We measured the effect of introduction of a structured encounter form on the completeness of documentation of pediatric wound management in a teaching hospital.

METHODS

The Children's Hospital Emergency Department introduced a structured encounter form for use in the documentation of wound care in place of the existing free-text dictation method. Attending physicians and trainees, all unaware of the study, had the option of using the form in place of free-text dictation for patients with lacerations requiring closure. We abstracted 100 consecutive free-text dictations from patients treated before the form's introduction. Following a 3-month run-in period, we abstracted 100 consecutive structured wound records. We compared the 2 chart types for completeness of documentation based on 20 predetermined criteria relevant to pediatric wound care.

RESULTS

Overall completeness of documentation improved with structured forms (80% vs 68% for free text, P < .001), with significant improvements in 6 of 20 individual criteria. Trainees demonstrated improvement in documentation with the structured form, with the greatest improvements among senior-level residents. Documentation of the general physical examination worsened with structured charting.

DISCUSSION

In an academic pediatric emergency department, the use of a structured complaint-specific form improved overall completeness of wound-care documentation. Structured encounter forms may provide for more standardized documentation for a variety of pediatric chief complaints, thereby facilitating communication and ultimately transition to template-driven systems in anticipation of an electronic medical record.

The utility of bedside ultrasound and patient perception in detecting soft tissue foreign bodies in children

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to determine if bedside ultrasound (US) and perception of wound foreign bodies (FBs) are useful screening tools for detecting wound FBs in children.

METHODS

Prospective consecutive sample of children aged 18 years or younger presenting to a pediatric emergency department with wounds considered by the pediatric emergency department attending physician to be at risk for FBs was enrolled. Patients were asked if they had FB sensation in their wound(s). A bedside US of each wound was performed by the pediatric emergency department attending physician. A radiograph of each wound was obtained and interpreted by a radiologist blinded to US results and patient perception. Wound FBs were defined by the removal of a FB. The utilities of US and US with FB perception were compared with radiography for screening for wound FBs. Differences in performance characteristics among the 3 modalities were assessed using Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one wounds were studied in 105 patients. FBs were identified in 12 wounds (9.2%). A subanalysis was performed on patients able to answer questions regarding their perception of wound FBs. There were no significant differences in the test performance characteristics of bedside US alone compared with radiography for detecting wound FBs. Except for specificity, there were no significant differences in the test performance characteristics of bedside US combined with perception compared with radiography for detecting wound FBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside US is comparable to the performance of radiography interpreted by an attending pediatric radiologist. Bedside US alone or combined with patient perception may be an adequate initial screening tool for detecting wound FBs.

Management of lacerations in the emergency department

The goals of wound management are simple: avoid infection and achieve a functional and aesthetically pleasing scar. This is achieved by reducing tissue contamination, debriding devitalized tissue, and restoring perfusion in poorly perfused wounds, in conjunction with a well-approximated skin closure.

Prediction of traumatic wound infection with a neural network-derived decision model

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a decision model, using an artificial neural network, that predicts infection in uncomplicated, traumatic, sutured wounds. The study was a prospective, cohort study of all patients presenting to the emergency department of a county teaching hospital with uncomplicated wounds that required suturing. In evaluating and treating wounds, emergency medicine (EM) faculty and residents, resident physicians in primary-care specialties, and supervised medical students on EM clerkships followed a standardized wound-management protocol. Clinicians estimated the likelihood of subsequent infection using a 5-point scale. Wound healing was followed until sutures were removed. Wound outcome data were collected by medical personnel blinded to the initial prediction. Student's t-tests and Pearson's chi-square statistic were used to identify independent predictors that served as input variables. Wound infection was the single output variable. Neural network analysis was used to assign weights to input variables and derive a decision equation. A total of 1,142 wounds were analyzed in the study. The overall infection rate was 7.2%. The most predictive factors for wound infection were wound location, wound age, depth, configuration, contamination, and patient age. To derive a decision equation for the model, the network was trained on data from half of the subjects and tested on the remainder. When used as a diagnostic test for wound infection, the decision model had a sensitivity of 70%, as compared to 54% for physicians, and a specificity of 76%, as compared to 78% for physicians. We conclude that through the use of combinations of 7 clinical variables available at the time of initial wound management, a neural network-derived decision model may be used to identify uncomplicated, traumatic wounds at higher risk for infection.

Tap water for irrigation of lacerations

This study was designed to compare the infection rates of simple lacerations irrigated with tap water versus sterile normal saline before repair. Patients with simple lacerations to an extremity that were less than 8 hours from injury were prospectively enrolled. Exclusions from the study were: dog bites, hand lacerations, immunocompromised patients, and those on antibiotics at the time of injury. Patients who qualified were randomized to receive tap water or normal saline for wound irrigation. Before and after irrigation, wound cultures were obtained. After the procedure was complete, patients were scheduled for a 48 hour follow-up wound check. A total of 46 patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the normal saline group and 21 were assigned to receive tap water irrigation. There were 2 infected lacerations in both the tap water and normal saline groups. The organisms cultured from the wounds in both groups were similar and there was no difference in colony counts when tap water was used. The use of tap water for the irrigation of lacerations does not result in the growth of unusual organisms or increase the colony counts of organisms. Wound infection rates were the same in both groups. This pilot study suggests that the use of tap water for irrigation of wounds may be safe. Further validation is necessary.

Closure of traumatic wounds without cleaning and suturing

BACKGROUND

In less than ideal situations wounds have to be closed without extensive cleaning using sterile adhesive strips (Steristrips). This prospective analyses the efficiency of this technique and compares it to the more conventional approach.

METHODS

Altogether 147 lacerations were closed with sterile strips with no wound cleaning. Patients were subsequently followed up for a minimum of three months.

RESULTS

The sepsis rate in compliant patients was 1.4% with a total complication rate of 2.7%.

CONCLUSION

This technique, while contradicting the "sacred tenets" of wound closure, is a cheap, quick, and effective alternative to routine closure of traumatic wounds in a casualty department.

Metal lawn and garden edging: the hidden knife?

OBJECTIVE

Lacerations account for many visits to the pediatric emergency department. We observed children presenting to local emergency departments in a large metropolitan area with lacerations incurred from metal lawn and garden edging, a landscaping tool. We sought to describe the severity of lacerations caused by metal edging, the characteristics of wound repair, and the need for subspecialty consultation.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review including all pediatric patients (< 18 years) presenting with lacerations caused by metal lawn and garden edging from January 1995 to October 1997 was performed. Patients were seen at one of three emergency departments in Colorado.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled (76% male, 24% female), with a median age of 9 years. The most frequent location of laceration was the foot (40%), followed by the knee (26%). The median length of laceration was 3 cm (range 1-22 cm). Sixteen patients (13%) received either intravenous or oral antibiotics, and six patients (5%) received orthopedic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal lawn and garden edging in landscaped neighborhoods presents a previously undescribed laceration danger to children. Some lacerations sustained from the metal lawn edging are extensive, receiving either multiple layer closure and/or the need for subspecialty consultation.

Updates in wound management for the pediatrician

Lacerations are common in children, and skills in wound management, especially laceration repair, are important. The minimization of pain and anxiety should be considered an essential part of the procedure. Newer techniques using topical anesthetics and tissue adhesives have significantly simplified the process of laceration repair promoting application in office, clinic, and emergency department settings. In situations inappropriate for topical anesthesia and closure, the use of buffered lidocaine and attention to the technique of infiltration are important. Although infection is the most common complication, the percentage of lacerations, which become infected in children, is low. Antibiotic prophylaxis is seldom needed. Human and animal bites raise special concerns in the assessment for primary repair and prophylactic antibiotic use.

Laceration management

In 1996, almost 11 million lacerations were treated in emergency departments throughout the United States. Although most lacerations heal without sequelae regardless of management, mismanagement may result in wound infections, prolonged convalescence, unsightly and dysfunctional scars, and, rarely, mortality. The goals of wound management are simple: avoid infection and achieve a functional and aesthetically pleasing scar. Recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of tissue adhesives has significantly expanded clinicians' wound closure options and improved patient care. We review the general principles of wound care and expand on the use of tissue adhesives for laceration repair.

A rational approach to the outpatient management of lacerations in pediatric patients

Lacerations are a frequent reason for pediatric health care visits. Many are referred to EDs or to surgical specialists but may be treated by the pediatrician who has the time and interest in maintaining wound care skills. Although skin closure is often viewed as the primary event in wound care, local anesthesia and wound toilet are equally important aspects in which expertise is often undervalued. On occasion, patient anxiety and resistance complicates wound care, and a variety of sedative techniques facilitates completion of procedures that otherwise would require general anesthesia. Adherence to basic principles and the occasional use of innovations in wound care enable the clinician to bring about optimal outcomes.

Tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine topical anesthesia compared with lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children

This study compared the effectiveness of a new topical anesthetic, tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine (TetraLidoPhen), with that of lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children. It was conducted in the emergency department of an urban children's hospital with use of a prospective, randomized, blinded study design. Participants were 90 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length on or near a mucous membrane that required suturing. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, with 45 patients in each group. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, and parents also scored pain using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, suture technicians completed an Anesthesia Effectiveness scale and a Wound Blanching scale. The laceration was located near the eyes in 71 patients (79%), and on or near the lips in 19 (21%). Lidocaine infiltration performed significantly better than topical TetraLidoPhen in comparisons of Likert scores of suture technicians (P = 0.007), research assistants (P = 0.005), the videotape reviewer (P = 0.003), and parents (P = 0.03); Anesthetic Effectiveness scale scores of suture technicians (P = 0.00002; relative risk (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.36 < RR < 2.46); and VAS scores of suture technicians (P = 0.002), research assistants (P = 0.001), and the videotape reviewer (P = 0.005). No significant difference in performance was detected between lidocaine and TetraLidoPhen in comparing VAS scores of parents and patients. There was a 4.4% wound complication rate, including two (2.2%) wound infections. The authors conclude that TetraLidoPhen is a new topical anesthetic that appears to be safe when applied on or near mucous membranes. Its performance among study participants was statistically inferior to that of lidocaine infiltration; however, the differences in pain scores were small and may not be clinically significant. Also, comparisons of pain scores in this study did not take into account the pain associated with the initial injection of lidocaine. Therefore, study findings may underestimate the comparative performance of TetraLidoPhen. Further investigation of this new topical anesthetic is warranted.

Overuse of parenteral antibiotics for wound care in an urban emergency department

This study compared patterns of parenteral antibiotic treatment by emergency physicians with literature-derived guidelines in the management of wound care. All patients who received parenteral antibiotics as part of wound management in an urban general emergency department (ED) (annual volume 65,000) and did not receive subsequent consultation or admission were prospectively studied for 4 weeks (July 18 to August 15, 1994). Data collected included age, sex, antibiotic, route of administration, dose, cost, diagnosis, and board certification of emergency physician. Antibiotic choice and dose were reviewed by study-blinded physicians and compared with criteria based on a review of the current wound care literature. Wound characteristics justifying antibiotic prophylaxis were derived from the literature and included immunocompromised patient, wounds with debris or occurring under contaminated circumstances, wounds with cellulitis or purulent drainage, wounds older than 18 hours, and crush injuries. The study included 72 patients, and 13 (18%) antibiotic discrepancies were found. Cefazolin (n = 49 [64%]) and ceftriaxone (n = 25 [35%]) were the most commonly prescribed parenteral antibiotics, with cefazolin used in 9 (69%) and ceftriaxone in 4 (31%) of discrepant cases. There were not significant differences in discrepant parenteral antibiotic by emergency physicians' board certification. There were no significant demographic differences between patients receiving discrepant and nondiscrepant antibiotics. The excess cost of discrepant parenteral antibiotics during this small study period was $380. Approximately one fifth of the parenteral antibiotics prescribed during wound care administered in the ED were discrepant with current recommendations derived from the literature.

Prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine topical anesthetics compared with tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine during repair of lacerations

The effectiveness of two new topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine (prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine) was compared with that of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) during laceration repair in children. This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial conducted in the emergency department of a large children's hospital. Participants were 180 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length that required suturing. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a visual analogue scale (VAS). There was no statistical difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of prilocaine-phenylephrine and that of TAC for any of the observer groups. A statistically significant difference was seen among anesthetics when comparing VAS scores of research assistants (P = .002), suture technicians (P = .006), and parents (P = .03), but not when comparing VAS ratings of patients (P = .07). Based on Tukey's post hoc test, these statistically significant differences were between TAC and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 1.3 VAS units for each rater group. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. Prilocaine-phenylephrine statistically outperformed bupivacaine-phenylephrine and offers an effective alternative to TAC during laceration repair in children.

Comparison of skin stapling devices and standard sutures for pediatric scalp lacerations: a randomized study of cost and time benefits

OBJECTIVE

To compare the total costs and the physician time requirements for suture and staple repair of pediatric scalp lacerations.

STUDY DESIGN

Eighty-eight children, 13 months to 16 years of age, coming to a children's hospital emergency department with simple scalp lacerations were prospectively randomly selected to receive staple or suture repair. Wound lengths, times required for initial wound care and closure, and equipment use were recorded. Patients returned in 1 week for suture or staple removal and wound reevaluation. The two methods were compared in terms of both time expended and costs of equipment and physician compensation.

RESULTS

Forty-five children underwent staple repair and 43 underwent suture repair. There were no differences in age, sex, wound length, number of sutures or staples per centimeter, or physician experience. Stapling resulted in shorter wound closure times (65 vs 397 seconds; p < 0.0001) and shorter overall times for wound care and closure (395 vs 752 seconds; p < 0.0001). Staple repair was less expensive in terms of equipment ($12.55 vs $17.59; p < 0.0001) and total cost based on equipment and physician time ($23.55 vs $38.51; p < 0.0001). The follow-up rate was 91%, with no cosmetic or infectious complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapling is faster and less expensive than suturing in the repair of uncomplicated pediatric scalp lacerations, with no additional complications. Physicians who treat children with scalp lacerations should consider the use of stapling devices.

Prospective evaluation of topical antibiotics for preventing infections in uncomplicated soft-tissue wounds repaired in the ED

OBJECTIVE

To determine differences in infection rates among uncomplicated, repaired wounds managed with: topical bacitracin zinc (BAC); neomycin sulfate, bacitracin zinc, and polymyxin B sulfate combination (NEO); silver sulfadiazine (SIL); and petrolatum (PTR).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at a military community hospital with an emergency medicine residency program. Patients were enrolled if they: presented to the ED within 12 hours of injury and did not have puncture wounds, allergies to the agents used, or a history of immunocompromise; were not receiving antibiotics, chemotherapy, or steroids at the time of presentation; had not taken antibiotics within the preceding seven days; did not have an underlying fracture; and were not pregnant as determined by history. Local anesthetics without epinephrine and high-pressure irrigation with normal saline were used for all patients. Wound scrubbing, débridement, and polyglactin subcutaneous (SQ) suture placement were carried out when necessary. Interrupted simple sutures using a monofilament, nonabsorbable material were used for skin closure. Numbered, randomized vials were given to all patients, with standardized instructions to inspect, clean, and redress their wounds three times a day. The wounds were evaluated for clinical infection at the time of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the groups, there was no difference in patient ages; gender; wound location, type, length, or depth; time elapsed from injury to ED treatment; number of wounds scrubbed or necessitating débridement; number of SQ and cutaneous sutures used; and rate of compliance with returning the used vial of dispensed topical agent. The wound infection rates for the treatment groups were: BAC, six of 109 (5.5%); NEO, five of 110 (4.5%); SIL, 12 of 99 (12.1%); and PTR, 19 of 108 (17.6%) (p = 0.0034).

CONCLUSION

The use of topical antibiotics resulted in significantly lower infection rates than did the use of a petrolatum control. BAC and NEO had the lowest wound infection rates.

Intranasal midazolam as a sedative for children during laceration repair

We performed a retrospective chart review to determine the onset, duration, safety, and clinical sedative effects of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg intranasal midazolam in young children during laceration repair. Of 408 children treated for lacerations during an 8-month period, 42 (10%) received intranasal midazolam. Documentation was adequate for detailed analysis in 40 cases. Data are reported as mean +/- standard deviation and the frequency with 95% confidence limit (CL) estimates. The mean age of the study population was 32 +/- 9 months (range 12 months to 6 years), and the mean body mass was 14.5 +/- 3 kg. Topical or injected local anesthesia was used in 37 cases. Overall, 73% (CL 56% to 85%) of the children achieved adequate sedation. However, those receiving 0.2 to 0.29 mg/kg had adequate sedation in only 27% (CL 6% to 60%) of the cases compared with 80% (CL 52% to 95%) and 100% (CL 79% to 100%) when 0.3 to 0.39 and 0.4 to 0.5 mg/kg respectively were administered. When achieved, sedation occurred within 12 +/- 4 minutes, recovery occurred at 41 +/- 9 minutes, and discharge occurred at 56 +/- 11 minutes. No vomiting or clinically significant oxygen desaturation (defined as a drop of > 4% or to < 91%) was observed. We conclude that intranasal midazolam is a safe and effective sedative for laceration repair under local anesthesia in preschool-aged children. We recommend a dose of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg, with treatment failure less likely after 0.4 to 0.5 mg/kg compared with less than 0.3 mg/kg.