Publication: Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis
Issued Date
2018-04-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15281140
00034932
00034932
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85044277254
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Annals of Surgery. Vol.267, No.4 (2018), 631-637
Suggested Citation
Boonying Siribumrungwong, Anuwat Chantip, Pinit Noorit, Chumpon Wilasrusmee, Winai Ungpinitpong, Pradya Chotiya, Borwornsom Leerapan, Patarawan Woratanarat, Mark McEvoy, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis. Annals of Surgery. Vol.267, No.4 (2018), 631-637. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002464 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/46815
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis
Abstract
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 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.