Management Strategy for Dirty Abdominal Incisions: Primary or Delayed Primary Closure? A Randomized Trial

Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Wounds in Patients with Lower Intestinal Perforations

Objectives

Laparotomy for lower intestinal perforation is associated with a high incidence of surgical site infections. This study aimed to assess whether incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) could reduce the incidence of these infections and wound dehiscence in patients with lower intestinal perforation.

Methods

This single-center prospective study was conducted between September 2019 and July 2022. In the therapy group, wounds were closed with subcuticular sutures, and iNPWT was applied at -120 mmHg for 5 days. A total of 10 days of iNPWT was employed. These patients were compared with a historical control group. The iNPWT group (Group A) comprised 22 patients.The historical control group (Group B) had 65 patients. Table outlines patient characteristics and compares the two study groups.

Results

Patient characteristics were demographically similar. The incidence of surgical site infections was lower in the therapy group than in the control group (9.1% vs. 52.3%, p < 0.001). Wound dehiscence was not observed in the therapy group but was noted in three patients (4.6%) in the control group. In univariate and multivariate analysis, an application of the therapy device was associated with reduced incidence of surgical site infections (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

Conclusions

The application of iNPWT in patients with lower intestinal perforation was associated with reduced surgical site infections.

Delayed versus primary closure to minimize risk of surgical-site infection for complicated appendicitis: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial using counterfactual prediction modeling

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) following complicated appendectomy in individual patients receiving delayed primary closure (DPC) versus primary closure (PC) after adjustment for individual risk factors.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) with prediction model.

SETTING

Referral centers across Thailand.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent appendectomy via a lower-right-quadrant abdominal incision due to complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a published RCT was performed applying a counterfactual prediction model considering interventions (PC vs DPC) and other significant predictors. A multivariable logistic regression was applied, and a likelihood-ratio test was used to select significant predictors to retain in a final model. Factual versus counterfactual SSI risks for individual patients along with individual treatment effect (iTE) were estimated.

RESULTS

In total, 546 patients (271 PC vs 275 DPC) were included in the analysis. The individualized prediction model consisted of allocated intervention, diabetes, type of complicated appendicitis, fecal contamination, and incision length. The iTE varied between 0.4% and 7% for PC compared to DPC; ∼38.1% of patients would have ≥2.1% lower SSI risk following PC compared to DPC. The greatest risk reduction was identified in diabetes with ruptured appendicitis, fecal contamination, and incision length of 10 cm, where SSI risks were 47.1% and 54.1% for PC and DPC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this secondary analysis, we found that most patients benefited from early PC versus DPC. Findings may be used to inform SSI prevention strategies for patients with complicated appendicitis.

0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Irrigation in Trauma/Emergency General Surgical Laparotomy Wounds Closure: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients who undergo exploratory laparotomy (EL) in an emergent setting are at higher risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) compared to the elective setting. Packaged Food and Drug Administration-approved 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) irrigation solution reduces SSI rates in nonemergency settings. We hypothesize that the use of 0.05% CHG irrigation solution prior to closure of emergent EL incisions will be associated with lower rates of superficial SSI and allows for increased rates of primary skin closure.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of all emergent EL whose subcutaneous tissue were irrigated with 0.05% CHG solution to achieve primary wound closure from March 2021 to June 2022 were performed. Patients with active soft-tissue infection of the abdominal wall were excluded. Our primary outcome is rate of primary skin closure following laparotomy. Descriptive statistics, including t-test and chi-square test, were used to compare groups as appropriate. A P value <0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with a median age of 51 y (18-92 y) underwent emergent EL. Primary wound closure is achieved in 98.5% of patients (65/66). Bedside removal of some staples and conversion to wet-to-dry packing changes was required in 27.3% of patients (18/66). We found that most of these were due to fat necrosis. We report no cases of fascial dehiscence.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing EL, intraoperative irrigation of the subcutaneous tissue with 0.05% CHG solution is a viable option for primary skin closure. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate our findings.

Superficial surgical site infection in delayed primary vs primary. Wound closure in complicated appendicitis

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Wound infection is the most common post-operative complication encountered after open appendectomy. Various studies have compared the risk of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in primary closure (PC) and delayed primary closure (DPC) of wounds. However, there is no uniform consensus regarding the method of wound closure.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to compare the two wound closure techniques.</br> <b><br>Material and methods:</b> This is a prospective study which enrolled 50 patients who underwent open appendectomy. The patients' demographics, characteristics, and operative findings were recorded. Those who were older than 18 years and had an appendectomy with a right lower quadrant incision were included. Patients with any comorbidity, morbid obesity, or pregnancy were excluded. Patients were randomized to undergo two techniques of wound closure: PC and DPC. During follow- -up at 1 week and 1 month, SSI, post-op pain, and LOS were compared among the two groups. Clinical assessment included the Visual Analog Scale (1-10) for pain.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> In our study, the incidence of SSI in the DPC group was significantly lower than in the PC group (p = 0.0002), while post-op pain and LOS were not significantly different between the two groups.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> We concluded that DPC was superior to PC in terms of reducing the incidence of superficial SSI, but with respect to post-op pain and LOS, the two techniques of wound closure were not different.</br>.

Comparison of olanexidine versus povidone-iodine as a preoperative antiseptic for reducing surgical site infection in both scheduled and emergency gastrointestinal surgeries: A single-center randomized clinical trial

Aim

Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common postoperative complications in gastrointestinal surgery. To clarify the superiority of 1.5% olanexidine, we conducted a randomized prospective clinical trial that enrolled patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery with operative wound classes II-IV.

Methods

To evaluate the efficacy of 1.5% olanexidine in preventing SSIs relative to 10% povidone-iodine, we enrolled 298 patients in each group. The primary outcome was a 30-day SSI, and the secondary outcomes were incidences of superficial and deep incisional SSI and organ/space SSI. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

The primary outcome of the overall 30-day SSI occurred in 38 cases (12.8%) in the 1.5% olanexidine group and in 53 cases (18.0%) in the 10% povidone-iodine group (adjusted risk ratio: 0.716, 95% confidence interval: 0.495-1.057, p = 0.083). Organ/space SSI occurred in 18 cases (6.1%) in the 1.5% olanexidine group and in 31 cases (10.5%) in the 10% povidone-iodine group, with a significant difference (adjusted risk ratio: 0.587, 95% confidence interval: 0.336-0.992, p = 0.049). Subgroup analyses revealed that SSI incidences were comparable in scheduled surgery (relative risk: 0.809, 95% confidence interval: 0.522-1.254) and operative wound class II (relative risk: 0.756, 95% confidence interval: 0.494-1.449) in 1.5% olanexidine group.

Conclusion

Our study revealed that 1.5% olanexidine reduced the 30-day overall SSI; however, the result was not significant. Organ/space SSI significantly decreased in the 1.5% olanexidine group. Our results indicate that 1.5% olanexidine has the potential to prevent SSI on behalf of povidone-iodine.

Practical Review on Delayed Primary Closure: Basic Science and Clinical Applications

Wound healing complications present a significant burden on both patients and health-care systems, and understanding wound healing principles is crucial across medical and surgical specialties to help mitigate such complications. One of these longstanding principles, specifically delayed primary closure (DPC), described as mechanically closing a wound after several days of secondary intention healing, lacks clear consensus on its definition, indications, and outcomes. This practical review examines wound healing fundamentals, focusing on DPC, its execution, indications, and comparative outcomes. A PubMed literature search was conducted to retrieve studies on DPC. Inclusion criteria included comparative studies assessing outcomes and complications between DPC and other closure techniques, as well as articles investigating DPC's underlying physiology. Twenty-three comparative studies met inclusion criteria. DPC wounds have significantly higher partial pressure of oxygen, higher blood flow, and higher rates of collagen synthesis and remodeling activity, all of which help explain DPC wounds' superior mechanical strength. DPC seems most beneficial in contaminated wounds, such as complicated appendectomies, postcardiac surgery wounds, and complicated abdominal wall reconstructions, where it has been associated with lower rates of surgical site infections. This practical review provides an evidence-based approach to DPC, its physiology, technique, and indications. Based on the existing literature, the authors recommend that DPC wounds should be dressed in saline/betadine soaks, changed and irrigated daily, with delayed closure lasting between 3 and 5 days or until the infection has resolved. The clearest indications for DPC are in the context of contaminated abdominal surgery and sternal wound dehiscence post cardiac surgery.

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard care for incisional laparotomy subcutaneous wounds in gastrointestinal perforations: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections after gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis have significant morbidity, increased hospital stays, and cost of treatment. The appropriate management of these wounds is still debatable.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis via midline incision were screened for inclusion. After the closure of the midline fascia, patients were randomized into an open negative pressure wound therapy group (application of negative pressure wound therapy and attempted delayed closure at day 4) or a standard care group (no negative pressure wound therapy and attempted delayed closure at day 4). Postoperative outcomes, including surgical site infection till 30 days, were compared between the groups. This was assessed by an independent assessor not involved in the study for delayed closure. Although a priori sample size was calculated, an interim analysis was performed due to slow recruitment during the COVID pandemic. After interim analysis, a continuation of the trial was deemed unethical and terminated.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients were assessed, and 69 were randomized (34 in the negative pressure wound therapy group and 31 in the standard care group). The age, body mass index, comorbidities, blood loss, operative time, and stoma formation were comparable. The surgical site infection was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound therapy group compared to the standard care group (6 [18%] vs 19 [61%], P < .01). The number needed to prevent 1 surgical site infection was 2.3. In a subgroup analysis, the use of negative pressure wound therapy also significantly decreased the rate of surgical site infection in stoma patients (4 [30.7%] vs 9 [69.3%], P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Open negative pressure wound therapy significantly decreases the incisional surgical site infection rate in patients with a dirty wound secondary to gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis.

Prophylactic effect of negative-pressure wound therapy and delayed sutures against incisional-surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy for colorectal perforation: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Aim

The prophylactic effect of negative-pressure wound therapy against incisional surgical site infection after highly contaminated laparotomies has not been sufficiently explored. This study aimed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of negative-pressure wound therapy against incisional surgical site infection after emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

Methods

This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the 48 emergency hospitals certificated by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine. Patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy for colorectal perforation between April 2015 and March 2020 were included in this study. Outcomes, including the incidence of incisional surgical site infection, were compared between patients who were treated with prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy and delayed sutures (i.e., negative-pressure wound therapy group) and patients who were treated with regular wound management (i.e., control group) using 1:4 propensity score matching analysis.

Results

The negative-pressure wound therapy group comprised 88 patients, whereas the control group consisted of 1535 patients. Of them, 82 propensity score-matched pairs (negative-pressure wound therapy group: 82; control group: 328) were evaluated. The negative-pressure wound therapy group showed a lower incidence of incisional surgical site infection [18 (22.0%) in the negative-pressure wound therapy group and 115 (35.0%) in the control group, odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.92; p = 0.026].

Conclusions

The prophylactic use of negative-pressure wound therapy with delayed sutures was associated with a lower incidence of incisional surgical site infection after emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

State-of-the-art abdominal wall reconstruction and closure

Open ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. Appropriate patient selection and preoperative optimization are important to ensure high-quality outcomes and prevent hernia recurrence. Preoperative adjuncts such as the injection of botulinum toxin and progressive preoperative pneumoperitoneum are proven to help achieve fascial closure in patients with hernia defects and/or loss of domain. Operatively, component separation techniques are performed on complex hernias in order to medialize the rectus fascia and achieve a tension-free closure. Other important principles of hernia repair include complete reduction of the hernia sac, wide mesh overlap, and techniques to control seroma and other wound complications. In the setting of contamination, a delayed primary closure of the skin and subcutaneous tissues should be considered to minimize the chance of postoperative wound complications. Ultimately, the aim for hernia surgeons is to mitigate complications and provide a durable repair while improving patient quality of life.

Superficial Surgical Site Infection in Delayed Primary Vs Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2162413/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

1.1 Background Wound infection is the most common post-op complication encountered after open appendectomy. Various studies comparing risk of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in primary closure (PC) and delayed primary closure (DPC) of wound has been conducted in the past. But there is no uniform consensus regarding the method of wound closure. So aim of this study was comparison of the two wound closure techniques. 1.2 Material and Methods This was prospective study which enrolled 50 patients who underwent open appendectomy. Patients’ demographics, characteristics and operative findings were recorded. Those who were elder than 18 years and had appendectomy with a right lower quadrant incision were included. Patients with any comorbidity, morbid obesity and pregnancy were excluded. Patients were randomized to undergo two techniques of wound closure namely PC and DPC. On follow-up at one week and one month, SSI, post-op pain and LOS were compared among two groups. Clinical assessment included a visual analog scale (1-10) for pain. 1.3 Results In our study incidence of SSI in DPC group was significantly lower when compared to PC group (p value=0.0002) while post-op pain and LOS were not significantly different on comparison between the two groups. 1.4 Conclusion We concluded that DPC was superior to PC of wound in terms of reduction of incidence of superficial SSI but with respect to post-op pain and LOS the two techniques of wound closure were not different.

Open and Closed Approaches to Skin Closure After Nonelective Open Colorectal Operations

INTRODUCTION

Optimal wound management strategies to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) in nonelective open colorectal surgery (NOCS) remain controversial and variable. Our aim is to describe SSI and other 30-day outcome measures among patients with varying wound management techniques undergoing NOCS.

METHODS

All NOCS patients were extracted from the 2016 to 2018 ACS-NSQIP database. Outcomes of patients managed with all layers closed (ALC) were compared to patients managed with skin open (SO), using propensity score matching (PSM) to control for significant confounding risk factors for SSI.

RESULTS

A total of 40,820 patients were included; 4622 patients managed with SO and 36,198 managed with ALC. Patients in the SO group were more likely to have a history of hypertension, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, obesity, and sepsis on presentation (P < .001). After PSM, no differences in risk factors remained; 4622 and 4344 patients were included in the SO and ALC cohorts, respectively. While ALC patients experienced a higher rate of superficial SSI (1.4% vs 7.3%, P < .001) and any wound complications (6.8% vs 10.8%, P < .001), the SO group had higher wound dehiscence (4.4% vs 2.8%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in deep wound infection. The SO group had longer average length of stay (14.7 vs 13.1 days, P < .001), higher non-wound-related complications, discharge to SNF, and in-hospital mortality.

DISCUSSION

Significant differences in SSI rates among NOCS patients with differing wound management techniques were observed. More notably, other important quality measures, such as length of stay, disposition, mortality, and non-wound-related complications were also significantly impacted by wound management strategy.

Primary versus delayed primary skin closure in operated patients due to perforated peptic ulcer disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a life-threatening complication of peptic ulcer disease. This condition is characterized by a dirty abdomen that predisposes to postoperative wound infection. Delayed primary skin closure is occasionally preferred over primary closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection in dirty abdominal wounds. In primary skin closure, the skin is sutured immediately after surgery. Meanwhile, in delayed primary skin closure, the incision is left open, and sutured after 2-5 days. The current research aimed to compare the risk for surgical site infection, length of hospitalization, and mortality rate between primary versus delayed primary skin closure among patients who underwent surgery for PPU.

METHODS

This single-blind randomized clinical trial included 120 patients who were randomly allocated into the primary and delayed primary closure groups. A research assistant who was blinded to the study examined the wounds for surgical site infection based on the 1992 Center for Disease Control criteria. The outcomes were mortality rate and duration of hospitalization.

RESULTS

The delayed primary and primary closure groups did not significantly differ in terms of postsurgical wound infection occurring on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 30th days after surgery, mortality rate, and duration of hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

In patients who underwent surgery for PPU, delayed primary closure is not recommended over primary closure due to the risk of postoperative surgical site infection.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Use of drain versus no drain We included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage. The outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies. There were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Open drain versus closed drain There were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis. Early versus late drain removal There were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin and subcutaneous tissues following complex, contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): a propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Wound complications following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a contaminated setting are common and significantly increase the risk of hernia recurrence. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of short-term negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) followed by operative delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin and subcutaneous tissue after AWR in a contaminated setting.

METHODS

A prospective institutional hernia database was queried for patients who underwent NPWT-assisted DPC after contaminated AWR between 2008 and 2020. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate and reopening of the incision. A non-DPC group was created using propensity-matching. Standard descriptive statistics were used, and a univariate analysis was performed between the DPC and non-DPC groups.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients underwent DPC following AWR. The hernias were on average large (188 ± 133.6 cm²), often recurrent (81.5%), and 60.5% required a components separation. All patients had CDC Class 3 (14.5%) or 4 (85.5%) wounds and biologic mesh placed. Using CeDAR, the wound complication rate was estimated to be 66.3%. Postoperatively, 26.4% patients developed a wound complication, but only 5.5% patients required reopening of the wound. The rate of recurrence was 5.5% with mean follow-up of 22.6 ± 27.1 months. After propensity-matching, there were 73 patients each in the DPC and non-DPC groups. DPC patients had fewer overall wound complications (23.0% vs 43.9%, p = 0.02). While 4.1% of the DPC group required reopening of the incision, 20.5% of patients in the non-DPC required reopening of the incision (p = 0.005) with an average time to healing of 150 days. Hernia recurrence remained low overall (2.7% vs 5.4%, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

DPC can be performed with a high rate of success in complex, contaminated AWR patients by reducing the rate of wound complications and avoiding prolonged healing times. In patients undergoing AWR in a contaminated setting, a NPWT-assisted DPC should be considered.

A randomized trial analyzing the effects of primary versus delayed primary closure of incision on wound healing in patients with hollow viscus perforation

Objectives

Delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin has been suggested to decrease superficial surgical site infection (SSSI) in patients undergoing surgery for peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation, but there is no consensus. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary closure (PC) and DPC of the skin in terms of SSSI, fascial dehiscence and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Material and Methods

Sixty patients, undergoing emergency surgery for perforation peritonitis, were randomized to PC (n= 30) and DPC (n= 30). Patients in the DPC group underwent skin closure four or more days after surgery when the wound was clinically considered appropriate for closure. Patients in the PC group had skin closure at the time of surgery.

Results

Incidence of SSSI was significantly less in the DPC group (7.4%) compared to the PC (42.9%) (p= 0.004). However, the median time of DPC was the 10th POD, i.e., these wounds required considerable time to become clinically suitable for closure. Incidence of fascial dehiscence was comparable between the two groups (p= 0.67). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13.8 days in the DPC group compared to 13.5 days in PC; the difference was not significant (p= 0.825).

Conclusion

DPC of the skin incision resulted in the reduction of SSSI. However, this did not translate into a reduction in hospital stay, as it took considerable time for these wounds to become appropriate for DPC, thus bringing into question any real advantage of DPC over PC.

Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Followed by Delayed Primary Closure for Abdominal Wounds in Patients with Lower Gastrointestinal Perforations: Multicenter Prospective Study

Objectives:

The efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and its application to severely contaminated wounds sustained during surgery remain to be established. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of utilizing NPWT until delayed primary closure (DPC) by assessing the infection rates in patients with lower gastrointestinal perforations.

Methods:

This prospective multicenter cohort study included 56 patients that underwent abdominal surgery for lower gastrointestinal perforations in eight institutions, from February 2016 to May 2017. All patients received NPWT after surgery before attempting DPC. The extent of peritonitis was categorized according to Hinchey's classification. Patients in stages II-IV were included.

Results:

Five patients had surgical site infections (SSIs) during NPWT and did not receive a DPC (9%). Of the 51 patients that received DPCs, 44 had no infection (91%) and 7 developed SSIs after the DPC (13.7%). For stages II, III, and IV, the SSI rates were 0%, 22.6%, and 35.7%, respectively; the median (range) times to wound healing were 15 (10-36), 19 (11-99), and 19 (10-53) days, respectively. There were no significant differences between the stages.

Conclusions:

NPWT followed by DPC resulted in low infection rates in each peritonitis stage. This approach appears promising as an alternative to traditional DPC alone for treating lower gastrointestinal perforations.

A Multi-Modal Approach to Closing Exploratory Laparotomies Including High-Risk Wounds

Background

Laparotomy incisions with contamination have a high incidence of surgical site infection (SSI). One strategy to reduce SSI has been to allow these wounds to heal by secondary intention; however, this results in an ongoing need for wound care after discharge.

Methods

A prospectively maintained Acute and Critical Care Surgery database was queried for patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy during 2008-2018. Patients were stratified into two groups: 2008-2015 (no protocol [NP]) and 2016-2018 (closure protocol [CP]). CP patients were operated on by a single surgeon utilizing a multi-modal high-risk incisional closure protocol, which included dilute chlorhexidine lavage, closed suction drains for incisions deeper than 3 centimeters, and incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT). The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines were used to determine wound classification and SSI based on chart review. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

A total of 139 patients met the study criteria. The overall SSI rate, including superficial and deep space infections, was no different in NP versus CP (21.6 vs. 24.1%; p=0.74). The rate of superficial SSI was similar between NP and CP (11.8 vs. 8.4%; p=0.53). Rates of wound closure at discharge were higher in the CP group than the NP group across wound classes, with the greatest difference among dirty wounds (50.0% NP vs. 94.9% CP; p<0.01). CP significantly increased the likelihood of wound closure (OR=179.2; p<0.001) even after controlling for body mass index, wound classification, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status, and initially open abdomen.

Conclusions

By addressing both tissue factors and bacterial burden through the use of a multi-modal high-risk incisional closure protocol involving iNPWT, all wounds can be considered for closure without increasing the risk of SSI.

Primary vs delayed primary closure in patients undergoing lower limb amputation following trauma: A randomised control study

Lower limb crush injury is a major source of mortality and morbidity in trauma patients. Complications, especially surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major source of financial burden to the institute and to the patient as it delays rehabilitation. As such, every possible attempt should be made to reduce any complications. We, thus, aimed to compare the outcomes in early vs delayed closure of lower extremity stumps in cases of lower limb crush injury requiring amputation, so as to achieve best possible outcome. A randomised controlled study was conducted in the Division of Trauma Surgery & Critical Care at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from 1 September 2018 to 30 June 2019 and included patients undergoing lower limb amputation below hip joint. Patients were randomised in two groups, in one group amputation stump was closed primarily, while in the second group delayed primary closure of stump was performed. We compared rate of SSI, length of hospital stay, and number of surgeries in both the groups. Fifty-six patients with 63 amputation stumps were recruited in the study. Mean age of patients in the study was 34 years, of which about 95% patients were males. The most common mechanism of injury was road traffic injury in 66% of patients. Mean injury severity score was 12.28 and four patients had diabetes preoperatively. Total 63 extremities were randomised with 30 cases in group I and 33 cases in group II as per computer-generated random number. Above knee amputations was commonest (57.14%) followed by below knee amputations (33.3%). Two patients died in the current study. In group I, In-hospital infection was detected in 7 cases (23.3%) and in group II 9 cases (27.3%) had SSI during hospital admission (P > .05). Mean hospital stay in group I was 10.32 ± 7.68 days and in group II was 11 ± 8.17 days (P > .05). Road traffic injuries and train-associated injuries are a major cause of lower limb crush injuries, leading to limb loss. Delayed primary closure of such wounds requires extra number of surgical interventions than primary closure. There is no difference in extra number of surgical interventions required in both the groups. Thus, primary closure can be safely performed in patients undergoing lower limb amputations following trauma, provided that a good lavage and wound debridement is performed.

Primary Skin Closure after Repair of Hollow Viscus Injuries

Decisions regarding whether to close the skin in trauma patients with hollow viscus injuries (HVIs) are based on surgeon discretion and the perceived risk for an SSI. We hypothesized that leaving the skin open would result in fewer wound complications in patients with HVIs. We performed a retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent operative repair of an HVI. The main outcome measure was superficial or deep SSIs. Of 141 patients, 38 (27%) had HVIs. Twenty-six patients developed SSIs, of which 13 (50%) were superficial or deep SSIs. On adjusted analysis, only female gender ( P = 0.03) and base deficit were associated ( P = 0.001) with wound infections Open wound management was not associated with a decreased incidence of SSIs ( P = 0.19) in patients with HVIs. Further research is required to determine optimal strategies for reducing wound complications in patients sustaining HVIs.

Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection Between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective:

To compare superficial surgical site infection (SSI) rates between delayed primary wound closure (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) for complicated appendicitis.

Background:

SSI is common in appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. DPC is preferentially used over PC, but its efficacy is still controversial.

Methods:

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 6 hospitals in Thailand, enrolling patients with gangrenous and ruptured appendicitis. Patients were randomized to PC (ie, immediately wound closure) or DPC (ie, wound closure at postoperative days 3–5). Superficial SSI was defined by the Center for Disease Control criteria. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery time, quality of life, and cost of treatment.

Results:

In all, 303 and 304 patients were randomized to PC and DPC groups, and 5 and 4 patients were lost to follow-up, respectively, leaving 300 and 298 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The superficial SSI rate was lower in the PC than DPC groups [ie, 7.3% (95% confidence interval 4.4, 10.3) vs 10% (95% CI 6.6, 13.3)] with a risk difference (RD) of −2.7% (−7.1%, 1.9%), but this RD was not significant. Postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery times, and quality of life were nonsignificantly different with corresponding RDs of 0.3 (−2.5, 3.0), −0.1 (−0.5, 0.3), −0.2 (−0.8, 0.4), and 0.02 (−0.01, 0.04), respectively. However, costs for PC were 2083 (1410, 2756) Baht cheaper than DPC (∼$60 USD).

Conclusions:

Superficial SSI rates for the PC group were slightly lower than DPC group, but this did not reach statistical significance. Costs were significantly lower for the PC group.

Primary Versus Delayed Primary Incision Closure in Contaminated Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Debates still exist whether delayed primary incision closure (DPC) could bring more benefits to patients suffering contaminated abdominal surgery. So, we want to determine whether DPC has advantage over primary incision closure (PC) in contaminated abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from January 1, 1980 to August 6, 2017. Bibliographies of potential eligibility were also retrieved. The primary outcome was the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and the second outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs were performed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Of the 12 studies included, five were from third world countries (i.e., India and Pakistan), and all of these demonstrated an improvement in SSI rate with DPC. When the fixed-effect model used, compared with PC, SSI was significantly reduced in DPC with a risk ratio of 0.64 (0.51-0.79) (P < 0.0001), and a significant difference in LOS between DPC and PC was also identified with a mean difference of 0.39 (0.17-0.60) (P = 0.0004). Although the random-effect model was used, no significant difference in SSI between DPC and PC was observed with a risk ratio of 0.65 (0.38-1.12) (P = 0.12), and no significant difference in LOS between DPC and PC was found with a mean difference of 1.19 (-1.03 to 3.41) (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

DPC may be the preferable choice in contaminated abdominal surgeries, especially in patients with high risk of infection, and particularly in resource constrained environments. In addition, more high-quality studies with well design are needed to provide clear evidence.

Surgical Site Infection after Primary Closure of High-Risk Surgical Wounds in Emergency General Surgery Laparotomy and Closed Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that the universal adoption of closed wounds with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in emergency general surgery patients would result in low superficial surgical infection (SSI) rates.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective observational study using primary wound closure with external NPWT, from May 2017 to May 2018. Patients with active soft tissue infection of the abdominal wall were excluded. Data were analyzed by Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, with significance is set at a value of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients (53% female) with a median age of 65 years (range 19 to 98 years) underwent laparotomies. Four patients were excluded for active soft tissue infection. Wounds were classified as dirty (n = 18), contaminated (n = 52), and clean contaminated (n = 11). Median BMI was 27 kg/m² (interquartile range [IQR] 23.4 to 33.0 kg/m²). Median antibiotic therapy was 4 days (IQR 1 to 7 days). Twenty-six patients had open abdomen management. Patient follow-up was a median of 20 days (range 14 to 120 days). Six patients (7%) developed superficial SSI requiring conversion to open wound management. No patients developed fascial dehiscence. There were no statistically significant associations between SSI and wound class (p = 0.072), antibiotic duration (p = 0.702), open abdomen management, or preoperative risk factors (p < 0.1). Overall morbidity was 38% and mortality was 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure of high risk incisions combined with NPWT is associated with acceptably low SSI rates. Due to the low morbidity and decreased cost associated with this technique, primary closure with NPWT should replace open wound management in the emergency general surgery population.

Wound Closure and Management

BACKGROUND

The management of incisions and decisions on closure techniques for surgical wounds are driven by expected incisional morbidity and the severity of the potential morbidity for the patient.

METHODS

This article reviews current literature on the potential strategies to be considered in closing the skin and fascia of incisions.

RESULTS

The review of the literature indicates that low-risk wounds for infection should be closed primarily with subcuticular suture, and adjunctive local measures should be avoided. Adjunctive measures of irrigation, topical antimicrobial agents, and negative pressure incisional therapy may have a role in high-risk wounds. Surgeons should strongly consider primary closure of contaminated wounds.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall literature on adjuncts of wound irrigation, topical antimicrobials, and negative pressure wound therapy have potential to be of benefit but additional investigation is necessary since they do impact cost, patient experience, and antibiotic stewardship.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.This is an update of the review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 June 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 June 2017), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 30 June 2017), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2017) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 30 June 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in people undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants).Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.

Open Surgical Incisions After Colorectal Surgery Improve Quality Metrics, But Do Patients Benefit?

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection is a frequent cause of morbidity after colorectal resection and is a quality measure for hospitals and surgeons. In an effort to reduce the risk of postoperative infections, many wounds are left open at the time of surgery for secondary or delayed primary wound closure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of delayed wound closure on the rate of surgical infections and resource use.

DESIGN

This retrospective propensity-matched study compared colorectal surgery patients with wounds left open with a cohort of patients with primary skin closure.

SETTINGS

The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program Participant Use file for 2014 was queried.

PATIENTS

A total of 50,212 patients who underwent elective or emergent colectomy, proctectomy, and stoma creation were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of postoperative infections and discharge to medical facilities were measured.

RESULTS

Surgical wounds were left open in 2.9% of colorectal cases (n = 1466). Patients with skin left open were broadly higher risk, as evidenced by a significantly higher median estimated probability of 30-day mortality (3.40% vs 0.45%; p < 0.0001). After propensity matching (n = 1382 per group), there were no significant differences between baseline characteristics. Within the matched cohort, there were no differences in the rates of 30-day mortality, deep or organ space infection, or sepsis (all p > 0.05). Resource use was higher for patients with incisions left open, including longer length of stay (11 vs 10 d; p = 0.006) and higher rates of discharge to a facility (34% vs 27%; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design and a large data set with a bias toward academic institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-matched colorectal cohort, secondary or delayed wound closure eliminates superficial surgical infections, but there was no decrease in deep or organ space infections. In addition, attention should be given to the possibility for increased resource use associated with open surgical incisions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A560.

Primary versus delayed primary closure of laparotomy wounds in children following typhoid ileal perforation in Ile-Ife, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

The optimal management strategy for dirty abdominal wounds has yet to be determined, but studies indicate that delayed primary closure (DPC) may be a reliable method of reducing surgical site infection (SSI) rate in these wounds. In this study, of dirty laparotomy wounds following typhoid ileal perforation (TIP), the SSI rate, incidence of wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay (LOS) are compared in wounds primarily closed to those closed in the delayed primary fashion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted over a 12-month period. Consecutive patients aged between 0 and 15 years with typhoid ileal perforation (TIP) were enrolled and prospectively randomized to test (DPC) group and control (PC) group. Data including age, sex, diagnosis, type of wound closure, SSI, wound dehiscence, time to wound healing, and LOS were obtained and analyzed using SPSS version 16.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were recruited into DPC group while 19 patients were allocated to the PC group. The SSI rate was 80% in the DPC group compared to 63.2% in the PC group (P = 0.451). 17.6% of patients in the DPC group and 8.8% in the PC group had wound dehiscence, respectively (P = 0.139). The difference in LOS although longer in the DPC group was not statistically significant (DPC 23.47 ± 9.2, PC 17.68 ± 18.9, P = 0.123).

CONCLUSION

DPC did not reduce the incidence of SSI and wound dehiscence, nor shorten LOS compared to PC. Therefore, PC of dirty wounds appears safe for the pediatric population and should be advocated.

Wound Outcome Following Primary and Delayed Primary Skin Closure Techniques After Laparotomy for Non-Traumatic Ileal Perforation: a Randomized Clinical Trial

To study the effect of primary and delayed primary closure of skin incision on wound outcome in patients with non-traumatic ileal perforation, 68 patients of ileal perforation were studied in a prospective randomized clinical trial. Patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were divided into ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups, both of which were then randomized into two subgroups each depending on whether skin was closed primarily or in a delayed primary manner. Wound infection and dehiscence were the main outcome parameters studied. The data collected was analyzed using appropriate statistical tools taking significant p value at 5 %. Most patients were 21-30 years of age. Male:female ratio was 3.2:1. The overall incidence of wound infection was 63 %. Wound infection was strongly associated with the incidence of superficial wound dehiscence and total wound dehiscence that were 11.76 and 47 %, respectively. Mortality was 10.3 %. Methodology of wound closure has no significant impact on incidence of wound infection, wound dehiscence, and mortality, although the onset of wound complications is significantly delayed with delayed primary closure of the skin.

Leaving the Skin Incision Open May Not Be as Beneficial as We Have Been Taught

BACKGROUND

Currently, various methods of skin closures are used in contaminated and dirty abdominal wounds without solid, evidence-based guidance. This study investigates whether closure methods affect surgical site infection (SSI) and other incisional complications. We hypothesize that open management of the skin would have the lowest complications, including SSI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients age ≥18 who underwent trauma laparotomy (TL) or damage control laparotomy (DCL) from 2008-2013 and had class III/IV wounds were included. Demographic, injury, treatment, and outcome variables were compared based on skin closure methods: Primary closure, intermittently stapled with wicks, or open management. Subgroup analyses for TL, DCL, and high-risk patients with stomach, colon, or rectal injuries were performed. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analyses were performed to identify risk factors for superficial/deep SSI and surgical incision complications.

RESULTS

A total of 348 patients were included. The median age was 47 years; 14% were female; 21% had blunt injuries. Overall SSI was highest for open incisions (p < 0.05), but there was no difference in superficial/deep SSI. Primary closures healed a median of 20 days, compared with 68 and 71 days for the intermittently stapled and open groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Primary closure in TL and high-risk patients also had the lowest SSI rates (all p < 0.05), but there were no differences in superficial/deep SSI in any subgroup. In TL patients, diabetes mellitus and colon injuries were independently associated with the development of superficial/deep SSI and surgical incision complications; however, skin closure method was not.

CONCLUSION

In class III and IV wounds, primary closure was associated with the lowest SSI, shortest length of stay and healing time. Method of skin closure, however, did not have an independent effect on the development of superficial/deep SSI or surgical incision complications. These suggest that primary skin closure in contaminated and dirty abdominal wounds may be performed more safely than commonly perceived.

Complications and Mortality Associated with Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are routinely used in the open abdomen. Ideally, they should prevent evisceration, aid in removal of unwanted fluid from the peritoneal cavity, facilitate in achieving safe definitive fascial closure, as well as prevent the development of intra-abdominal complications. TAC techniques used in the open abdomen were compared with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to identify which was superior. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines involving Medline, Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies describing TAC technique use in the open abdomen were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed per TAC technique in the form of a meta-analysis. A total of 225 articles were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis involving only randomized controlled trials showed that NPWT with continuous fascial closure was superior to NPWT alone for definitive fascial closure [mean difference (MD): 35% ± 23%; P = 0.0044]. A subsequent meta-analysis involving all included studies confirmed its superiority across outcomes for definitive fascial closure (MD: 19% ± 3%; P < 0.0001), perioperative (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0013) and in-hospital (MD: -5.0% ± 2.9%; P = 0.0013) mortality, entero-atmospheric fistula (MD: 22.0% ± 1.8%; P = 0.0041), ventral hernia (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0010), and intra-abdominal abscess (MD: -3.1% ± 2.1%; P = 0.0044). Therefore, it was concluded that NPWT with continuous fascial traction is superior to NPWT alone.

An Inexpensive Modified Primary Closure Technique for Class IV (Dirty) Wounds Significantly Decreases Superficial and Deep Surgical Site Infection

Despite the creation of several programs to decrease the incidence of surgical site infection, it remains a common complication that has a significant impact on patient recovery and medical costs. The following is a description and brief outcome report of a modified primary closure technique used for dirty (Class IV) wounds. There were 14 consecutive patients who had a laparotomy with Class IV wounds treated by a single surgeon (TAA) from 2011 to 2015. All patients had a history of cancer and either showed signs suggestive for an acute abdomen and required an emergent exploratory laparotomy or were found to have purulent intraabdominal infection at the time of elective surgery. The operation and "modified primary closure" technique (subcutaneous wound wicks with stapled skin closure) were performed in every case. The modified primary closure technique was utilized in 14 patients with a Class IV wound. There were no 30-day mortalities or readmissions. Wound wicks were slowly advanced out over a 7-day period, and only one patient required subsequent wound packing of a single-wicked area. There were no superficial or deep surgical site infections, or wound dehiscence during the hospital course, or 30-day postoperative period. The modified primary closure technique is efficient and inexpensive and was effective in a series of 14 patients with wounds classified as dirty.

Negative pressure therapy is effective in abdominal incision closure

BACKGROUND

CDC wound classification demonstrates surgical site infection (SSI) occurs in 15%-30% of contaminated (class III) and >30% of dirty-infected (class IV) wounds. Several techniques have been used to decrease SSI rates in midline laparotomy incisions; however, no technique has shown superiority. Evidence suggests incisional negative pressure wound therapy (INPWT) can decrease wound complications, but no literature exists regarding INPWT for high-risk laparotomy incisions. We sought to analyze the efficacy of INPWT in the management of high-risk midline laparotomy incisions.

METHODS

Retrospective review of adult patients who underwent laparotomy between January 2013 and June 2014 with midline closure using INPWT. Only class III or IV wounds were included. Laparotomy incisions were loosely closed. INPWT set at 125 mm Hg is placed over oil emulsion impregnated gauze. INPWT is removed after 5 d and the wound left open to air. Records were reviewed for immediate and/or delayed surgical site complications. Primary end point was 30-d incisional SSI. Secondary end points included other surgical site complications.

RESULTS

One class III and 12 class IV wounds were treated with INPWT for a median of 5 d. The class III wound developed a small skin dehiscence with no evidence of superficial or deep SSI. Among class IV wounds, the rate of superficial and deep incisional SSI was 25% and 0%, respectively. The overall surgical site complication rate was 41.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

INPWT in closure of high-risk midline laparotomy incisions is a safe, effective method of wound closure with equivalent SSI rates to previously described methods.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to February 2014), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to February 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials involving 453 patients with complicated appendicitis who were randomised to the drainage group (n = 228) and the no drainage group (n = 225) after emergency open appendectomies. All of the trials were at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection. The hospital stay was longer in the drainage group than in the no drainage group (MD 2.04 days; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.62) (34.4% increase of an 'average' hospital stay).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Abdominal drainage after an emergency open appendectomy may be associated with delayed hospital discharge for patients with complicated appendicitis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated appendicitis and other contaminated abdominal wounds. Medline and Scopus were searched from their beginning to November 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSI and length of stay between DPC and PC. Studies’ selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors. The risk ratio and unstandardised mean difference were pooled for SSI and length of stay, respectively. Among 8 eligible studies, 5 studies were done in complicated appendicitis, 2 with mixed complicated appendicitis and other types of abdominal operation and 1 with ileostomy closure. Most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment. Among 6 RCTs of complicated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy, the SSI between PC and DPC were not significantly different with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.73). DPC had a significantly 1.6 days (95% CI: 1.41, 1.79) longer length of stay than PC. Our evidence suggested there might be no advantage of DPC over PC in reducing SSI in complicated appendicitis. However, this was based on a small number of studies with low quality. A large scale RCT is further required.

[Prevention of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery. A critical review of the evidence]

Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased morbidity, mortality and sanitary costs, and reduced patients quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted guidelines of scientifically-validated processes for prevention of surgical site and central-line catheter infections and sepsis. Most of these guidelines have resulted in an improvement in postoperative results. A review of the best available evidence on these measures in abdominal surgery is presented. The best measures are: avoidance of hair removal from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcoholic antiseptic, correct use of antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60 min before incision, use of 1(st) or 2(nd) generation cephalosporins, single preoperative dosis, dosage adjustments based on body weight and renal function, intraoperative re-dosing if the duration of the procedure exceeds 2 half-lives of the drug or there is excessive blood loss), prevention of hypothermia, control of perioperative glucose levels, avoid blood transfusion and restrict intraoperative liquid infusion.

Comparison of superficial surgical site infection between delayed primary and primary wound closures in ruptured appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Delayed primary (DPC) and primary (PC) wound closures have been applied in ruptured appendicitis, but results were controversial. This study aims at comparing the rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in ruptured appendicitis between DPC and PC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of ruptured appendicitis was conducted between October 2006 and November 2009. Demographic, operative findings and postoperative infection data were retrieved. The superficial SSI rates between groups were compared using an exact test. An odds ratio of SSI was then estimated.

RESULTS

One-hundred and twenty eight patients with ruptured appendicitis were eligible and their data were retrieved; 115 (90%) patients had received DPC and 13 (10%) patients had received PC. The SSI rate was much lower in PC patients than in DPC patients, i.e., 7.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02, 36.0] versus 27.8% (95% CI: 19.9, 37.0), respectively. There was an approximately 72% lower risk of SSI in the PC group than in the DPC group, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that PC does not increase risk of SSI in low SSI risk patients with ruptured appendicitis. DPC should not be routinely done.

Skin closure after trauma laparotomy in high-risk patients: opening opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND

Although many surgeons leave laparotomy incisions open after colon injury to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), other injured patient subsets are also at risk. We hypothesized that leaving trauma laparotomy skin incisions open in high-risk patients with any enteric injury or requiring damage control laparotomy (DCL) would not affect superficial SSI and fascial dehiscence rates.

METHODS

Patients who underwent trauma laparotomy (2004-2008) at two Level I centers were reviewed. To ensure a high-risk sample, only patients with transmural enteric injuries or need for DCL surviving 5 days or more were included. SSIs were categorized by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) criteria and risk factors were analyzed by skin closure (open vs. any closure). Significant (p < 0.05) univariate variables were applied to two multivariate analyses examining superficial SSI and fascial dehiscence.

RESULTS

Of 1,501 patients who underwent laparotomy, 503 met inclusion criteria. Patients were young (median, 28.0 years; range, 22.0-40.0 years) with penetrating (74%) or enteric (80%) injuries, and DCL (36%) and SSI (44%; superficial, 25%; deep, 3%; organ/space, 25%) were common. While no difference in superficial SSI after loose (n = 136) or complete skin closure (n = 224) was detected (p = 0.64), superficial SSIs were less common with open skin incisions (9.8%), despite multiple risk factors, than with any skin closure (31.1%, p < 0.001). Predictors of superficial SSIs and fascial dehiscence were each evaluated with multiple-variable logistic regression analysis. After adjusting for multiple potential confounding variables, any skin closure increased the risk of superficial SSIs approximately nine times (odds ratio, 8.6; p < 0.001) and fascial dehiscence six times (odds ratio, 5.7; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Management of skin incisions takes careful consideration like any other step of a laparotomy. Our results suggest that the decision to leave skin open is one simple method to improve outcomes in high-risk patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level III.

Wound infection in the obese pregnant woman

Obesity has been linked as a risk factor for wound complications and is becoming a more common occurrence. We reviewed the risk factors, preventive strategies, and recommended management of wound complications in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. The limited available data support the use of prophylactic antibiotic before cesarean delivery, closure of subcutaneous space >2 cm, and maintaining normothermia intraoperatively to help reduce the incidence of postoperative wound complications. Data regarding management of cesarean wound complications in the obese patient are sparse, but they do suggest either primary or secondary closure of wounds is preferred to healing by secondary intention. Antibiotics should be administered in the presence of cellulitis or systemic toxicity. Use of vacuum-assisted wound closure devices may be useful in wound management. There is a need for randomized controlled trials which evaluate the prevention and management of wound complications in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery.

Preventing surgical site infections

The risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is approximately 1-3% for elective clean surgery. Apart from patient endogenous factors, the role of external risk factors in the pathogenesis of SSI is well recognized. However, among the many measures to prevent SSI, only some are based on strong evidence, for example, adequate perioperative administration of prophylactic antibiotics, and there is insufficient evidence to show whether one method is superior to any other. This highlights the need for a multimodal approach involving active post-discharge surveillance, as well as measures at every step of the care process, ranging from the operating theater to postoperative care. Multicenter or supranational intervention programs based on evidence-based guidelines, 'bundles' or safety checklists are likely to be beneficial on a global scale. Although theoretically reducible to zero, the maximal realistic extent by which SSI can be decreased remains unknown.