Primary versus delayed wound closure technique in laparotomy wound of perforation peritonitis

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus on the ideal techniques for wound closure of contaminated wounds. Multiple techniques have been proposed. The aim of the study is to compare the wound infection rates of laparotomy wounds in perforation peritonitis in primary and delayed primary wound closure. The purpose is comparison of primary wound closure and delayed primary wound closure with respect to rate of wound infection and other associated complications like wound dehiscence, stitch sinuses, incisional hernias and duration of hospital stay.Methods: This study included 106 patients, divided into two groups, primary closure (A) in which wound was primarily closed and secondary closure (B) in which wound was left open without suturing and saline irrigation was given and were sutured once the wound is clean and culture sterile. The wound infection was assessed using Southampton scoring system.Results: A total of 106 patients, 60 (56.6%) males and 46 (43.4%) females were included. Group A, 53 patients with 54.7% males and 45.3% females and in B, 53 patients with 58.5% males and 41.5% females. The mean age in A was 38.4 11.8while that in B 37.02 12.59. Group A had an infection rate of 77.4%whereas group B had only 34%. The duration of hospital stay for B was 9.72 2.57 and for group A, 11.74 2.87days.Conclusions: The delayed primary closure is the optimal technique for wound closure in contaminated wounds like perforation peritonitis as it reduces wound infection rates and hospital stay.