Volume 33, Issue 8 (November 2022)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2022, 33(8): 596-602 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Javan N, Pakzad S, Mahmoudlo R. COMPARISON OF WOUND INFECTION IN SKIN REPAIR BY TWO WAYS OF SUBCUTICULAR AND FAR AND NEAR SUTURES IN UNCOMPLICATED APPENDECTOMIES. Studies in Medical Sciences 2022; 33 (8) :596-602
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5897-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5897-en.html
Assistant Professor of General Surgery, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran (Corresponding Author) , shivapakzad64@gmail.com
Abstract: (1214 Views)
Background & Aims: Appendectomy due to appendicitis is the most common emergency surgery in the world. Appendicitis occurs mostly in the second to fourth decades of life. The aim of this study was to compare wound infection in skin repair by the two ways of subcuticular and far and near sutures in uncomplicated appendectomies in Imam Khomeini hospital, Urmia, Iran.
Materials & Methods: This study was an interventional trial that was conducted on 300 patients who underwent appendectomy and the surgical site wound was repaired with two types of subcuticular sutures and distal and proximal sutures. The patients were examined by the attending physician for signs of infection such as purulent discharge, local tenderness, fever, hematoma, redness, and drainage at the site of the surgical wound. The final diagnosis of the infection was made by the attending physician based on the definition of the infection and according to the symptoms.
Results: In this study, 150 people had their skin repaired by the subcuticular method and 150 people by the far and near method. In terms of surgical wound infection, 3 people (2%) had infection and 147 people (98%) had no infection. In the group of skin repair by far and near method, 5 people (3.3%) had infection and 145 people (96.7%) had no infection in skin repair by subcuticular method. In total, 8 people (2.66%) had surgical wound infection and 292 people (97.33%) had no surgical wound infection, and there was no significant difference between post-surgical wound infection in the two treatment groups (P<0.05).
Conclusions: This study showed that there was no significant difference in wound infection in two treatment groups. However, the infection in the subcuticular skin repair group was higher than the far and near skin repair group.
Materials & Methods: This study was an interventional trial that was conducted on 300 patients who underwent appendectomy and the surgical site wound was repaired with two types of subcuticular sutures and distal and proximal sutures. The patients were examined by the attending physician for signs of infection such as purulent discharge, local tenderness, fever, hematoma, redness, and drainage at the site of the surgical wound. The final diagnosis of the infection was made by the attending physician based on the definition of the infection and according to the symptoms.
Results: In this study, 150 people had their skin repaired by the subcuticular method and 150 people by the far and near method. In terms of surgical wound infection, 3 people (2%) had infection and 147 people (98%) had no infection. In the group of skin repair by far and near method, 5 people (3.3%) had infection and 145 people (96.7%) had no infection in skin repair by subcuticular method. In total, 8 people (2.66%) had surgical wound infection and 292 people (97.33%) had no surgical wound infection, and there was no significant difference between post-surgical wound infection in the two treatment groups (P<0.05).
Conclusions: This study showed that there was no significant difference in wound infection in two treatment groups. However, the infection in the subcuticular skin repair group was higher than the far and near skin repair group.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
جراحی عمومی
References
1. Brunicardi F, Andersen D, Billiar T, Dunn D, Hunter J, Pollock RE. Schwartz's principles of surgery: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2004 - 125.234.102.149 [URL]
2. Connell FG. Etiology of appendicitis. Am J Surg 1937;37(2):232-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0002-9610(37)90618-4]
3. Brennan GD. Pediatric appendicitis: pathophysiology and appropriate use of diagnostic imaging. Can J Emerg Med 2006;8(6):425-32. [DOI:10.1017/S1481803500014238] [PMID]
4. Lamps LW. Infectious causes of appendicitis. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2010;24(4):995-1018. [DOI:10.1016/j.idc.2010.07.012] [PMID]
5. Owen T, Williams H, Stiff G, Jenkinson L, Rees B. Evaluation of the Alvarado score in acute appendicitis. J R Soc Med 1992;85(2):87-8. [DOI:10.1177/014107689208500211] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. John H, Neff U, Kelemen M. Appendicitis diagnosis today: clinical and ultrasonic deductions. World J Surg 1993;17(2):243-9. [DOI:10.1007/BF01658936] [PMID]
7. Leaper D. Surgical‐site infection. Br J Surg 2010;97(11):1601-2. [DOI:10.1002/bjs.7275] [PMID]
8. Malone DL, Genuit T, Tracy JK, Gannon C, Napolitano LM. SSI: reanalysis of risk factors. J Surg Res 2002;103(1):89-95. [DOI:10.1006/jsre.2001.6343] [PMID]
9. Allemann P, Probst H, Demartines N,SchäferM.Prevention of infectious complications after … World J Surg. 2017;41(5):1254-8 [URL]
10. de Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, Murphy D, Song D, Vaughn BB. SSI: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Contro 2009;37(5):387-97. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2008.12.010] [PMID]
11. Jafari Giv S, Kashi E A, Ghani H, Moosavi G, Afshar M. Comparison between subcuticular and interrupted transdermal wound repair on wound infection after suppurative appendectomy. J Birjand Univ Med Sci 2005;12(3 and 4):9-15. [Google Scholar]
12. Shiryazdi S, Mirshamsi M, Jalilimanesh M, Taghavieh A, Hajiesmaeili M, Sehatbakhsh M. Closure of appendectomy wound comparing 2 methods: subcuticular and mattress suture. Iran J Surg 2008,15(4):41-6 [URL]
13. Ghaderi H, Shamimi K, Moazzami F, Aminian A, Jalali SM, Afghani R, et al. A new look at an old dogma: wound complications in two methods of skin closure in uncomplicated appendicitis. Tehran Univ Med J 2010;68(1):54-8. [Google Scholar]
14. Serour F, Efrati Y, Klin B, Barr J, Gorenstein A, Vinograd I. Subcuticular skin closure as a standard approach to emergency appendectomy in children: prospective clinical trial. World J Surg 1996;20(1):38-42. [DOI:10.1007/s002689900007] [PMID]
15. Onwuanyi O, Evbuomwan I. Skin closure during appendicectomy: a controlled clinical trial of subcuticular and interrupted transdermal suture techniques. J R Coll Surg Edinb1990;35(6):353-5. [Google Scholar]
16. Boutros S, Weinfeld AB, Friedman JD. Continuous versus interrupted suturing of traumatic lacerations: a time, cost, and complication rate comparison. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2000;48(3):495-7. [DOI:10.1097/00005373-200003000-00021] [PMID]
17. Anate M. Skin closure of laparotomy wounds: absorbable subcuticular sutures vs. non-absorbable interrupted sutures. West Afr J Med 1991;10(2):150-7. [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
