Details
Category: Volume 06 Issue 02 February 2018
Hits: 1051

Title: Prospective Study of Two Management Strategies for Dirty Abdominal Incisions following Laparotomy for Ruptured Appendicitis

Authors: Idris Olawale Lateef, Idris Oluwatoyin Jelilat*, Adejumobi Musibau Olaniyi, Kolawole Oladapo Adedayo, Akanbi Olusola Olateju, Oyeniyi Ganiyu Adebukola, Oguntola Adetunji Saliu

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v6i2.198

Abstract

Background: The rate of surgical site infection (SSI) for dirty abdominal wounds is about 40%. The optimal closure method, for dirty abdominal incisions, that will reduce SSI still remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the optimal method of wound closure, after laparotomy, for patients with ruptured appendicitis.

Methods: Eighty-seven patients were randomized into one of the primary closure (PC) group and delayed primary closure (DPC) group. Patients in the PC group had their surgical incisions closed immediately while for those in the latter group had DPC. Incisions in the DPC group were evaluated on postoperative day-4 (POD4), for closure if pristine. However, if SSI was suspected in both groups, the dressing was removed for wound inspection using sterile technique (also in the PC group, sutures were removed over the infected area to allow egress of exudates), and wound dressing was commenced. The main outcome measures were the incidence of surgical site infection and the length of hospital stay.

Results: In the entire series, SSI developed in 40.2 % of patients after closure of incisions. Primary closure group had a higher incidence of SSI (41.9% vs 38.6%, p = 0.088) and longer LOS (8.1 + 3.7 days vs 7.3 + 2.2 days, p= 0.12).

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the development of SSI between the two groups (P >0.05). Laparotomy incisions, after ruptured appendicitis, most often can be closed primarily without a significant increase in the incidence of SSI as compared to DPC.

Keywords: PC, DPC, Ruptured appendicitis, SSI.

References

  1. Jadesh Bhadragoudra, Basavaraj Narasanagi, Tejaswini Vallabha and Vikram Sindagikar; Comparative study of delayed primary closure versus primary closure of skin in contaminated and dirty abdominal wounds/ incisions. Int J Clin and Biomed Res. 2016;2(1): 16-19
  2. Cohn SM, Giovanni Giannotti, Adrian W, Varela JE, Shartz DV, McKenney MG, Danny S, Enrique G, Jeffrey S, Patricia M, Laurence RS, Michael DH and Nicholas N.; Prospective randomized trial of two wounds management strategies for dirty abdominal wounds in Annal of Surgery, March 2001: 233 (3): 409 – 413
  3. Ruey-An Chiang, Shan-Long Chen and Yao-Chung Tsai; Delayed primary closure versus primary closure for wound management in perforated appendicitis: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Journal of Chinese Medical Association 75 (2012) 156 -159
  4. Boonying Siribumrungwong, Kanoklada Srikuea and Ammarin Thakkintian; Comparison of superficial surgical site infection between delayed primary and primary wound closures in ruptured appendicitis. Asian Journal of Surgery (2014) 37, 120 -124.
  5. Mahmoud N. Kaylat and Merril T Dayton, Surgical complications in Sabiston textbook of Surgery; 18th Edition, Courtney MT, Daniel RB, Mark ME, and Kenneth LM,(editors): Elsevier Saunders; 2007: 299-305.
  6. Jonathan L., Meakins, and Byron J. M., Prevention of postoperative infections in American College of Surgeons (ACS) Principle and practice of surgery, 2005: chapter 2: 1-19.
  7. Dipesh D, Duttaroy JJ, Bithika D, Ujjwal Bansal, and Prarthna D, Management Strategy for Dirty Abdominal Incisions: Primary or Delayed Primary Closure? A Randomized trial in Surgical infection in Ann Surgery, April 2009, 10:2: 129 – 136. [HINARI].
  8. Adesunkanmi ARK and Ajao OG, Tyhoid ileal perforation; the value of delayed-primary closure of abdominal wounds in African Journal of Medical Science; 1996: 25: 31 – 35.
  9. Christopher OB, Primary versus Delayed – primary closure of dirty abdominal wounds in National Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria (NPMCN) Library; Nov 1991: 84 – 90.
  10. Felipe AR, Enrique L, Roberto S and Patricia OS, Open versus Closed mana-gement of the abdomen in surgical treatm-ent of severe secondary peritonitis: A randomised clinical trial in British Journal of Surgery; 2007: 9 (11): 1317 – 1318.
  11. Mukhtar Ahmad, Kishwar Ali, Humera Latif, Saman Naz and Khalid Said; Comparison of primary wound closure with delayed primary wound closure in perforated appendicitis. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 2014; 26 (2)
  12. Aneel Bhangu, Prashant Singh, Jonathan Lundy and Douglas M. Bowley; Systemic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Primary vs Delayed primary Skin Closure in Contaminated and Dirty Abdominal Incisions. JAMA Surgery, August 2013, Volume 148, Number 8
  13. Johnstone JMS, and Rintoul RF, Abdominal surgery; access and procedures in Farquharson’s textbook of operative surgery; 8th edition, RF Rintoul (editor), Churchill Livingstone; 2000: 337 – 352.
  14. Avril Drumond, The research process in Research methods for therapists, 3rd edition, Campling JO (editor), Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd; 1998: 31 – 46.
  15. Afolabi EB, Determination of sample size in a companion of medical statistics. 1st Edition, Ibipress &Publishing Co; 2006: 78- 156.
  16. V. Ussiri, C.A. Mkony and M.R. Aziz; Sutured and Open Clean-Contaminated and Contaminated Laparotomy Wounds at Muhimbili National Hospital: A Comparison of Complications. East and Central African Journal of Surgery, Volume 9, Number 2 – December 2004.
  17. Tsang TM, Tam PKH and Saing H. Delayed primary wound closure using skin tapes for advanced appendicitis in children. Arch Surg 1992;127:451–53.
  18. Lemieur TP, Rodriguez JL, Jacobs DM, Bennett ME and West MA. Wound management in perforated appendicitis. Am Surg 1999;65: 439–43.
  19. Pettigrew RA. Delayed primary wound closure in gangrenous and perforated appendicitis. Br J Surg 1981;68:635–8.
  20. McGreal GT, Joy A, Manning B, Kelly JL, O’Donnell JA, Kirwan WW and Redmond HP; Antiseptic wick: does it reduce the incidence of wound infection following appendectomy? World J Surg. 2002;26(5):631-634.
  21. Mansoor Khan, Rooh-ul-Muqim, Mohammad Zarin, Jawad Khali and Muhammad Salman; Influence of ASA Score and Charlson Comorbidity Index on Surgical Site Infection Rates. Journal of College of Physician and Surgeon 2010, Vol.20 (8):506-509
  22. Andersen B, Bendtsen A, Holbraad L, and Schantz A; Wound infections after appendicectomy. I. A controlled trial on the prophylactic efficacy of topical ampicillin in non-perforated appendicitis. II. A controlled trial on the prophylactic efficacy of delayed primary suture and topical ampicillin in perforated appendicitis. Acta Chir Scand 1972;138:531–6.

Corresponding Author

IDRIS Oluwatoyin Jelilat

Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Health Sciences,

Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Osogbo. Osun State, Nigeria.

Telephone No; +2348033812425, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.