Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:36:23.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wound Infection After Simple Suture at the Emergency Ward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michael Alkan ,
Ziva Gefen  and
Louis Golcman
Michael Alkan*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, the Hospital Infection Control Service, and the Department of Surgery, Soroka Medical Center and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, BeerSheva, Israel
Ziva Gefen
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, the Hospital Infection Control Service, and the Department of Surgery, Soroka Medical Center and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, BeerSheva, Israel
Louis Golcman
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, the Hospital Infection Control Service, and the Department of Surgery, Soroka Medical Center and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, BeerSheva, Israel
*
Department of Medicine, Soroka Medical Center, P.O. Box 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Of 386 consecutive patients whose wounds were sutured at the emergency ward of the Soroka Medical Center, 228 returned for a follow-up visit during which pus was observed in 40 sutured wounds. Most of the patients were males, 50% lived in the city, and 13% were Beduin. Fifty percent of the wounds were dressed prior to admission. All wounds were rinsed prior to suture, 78% in a cetrimide-chlorhexidine HC1 solution and in 71% an irrigation with a povidone-iodine solution was performed. The physicians who performed the procedure were graded by their medical experience; 43% of the sutures were performed by interns, 32% by junior residents, 19% by senior residents and 6% by a specialist. Silk thread was the most commonly used suture material (79%). Wounds were classified according to size, depth and state of the margins of the wound. It was noted whether an excision was performed and the type of treatment that was prescribed after the procedure. None of the above-mentioned criteria identified a group as high-risk. Experienced physicians sutured the more serious wounds, but their infection rate did not differ significantly from other physicians.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , December 1984 , pp. 562 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Crane, PJE: A five year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973;107:206–210.Google Scholar
2.Gosnold, JK: Infection rate of sutured wounds. The Practitioner 1977;218:584–585.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Routherford, WH, Spence, AJ: Infection in wounds sutured in the accident and emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1980;9:350–352.Google Scholar
4.Day, TK: Controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics in minor wounds requiring suture. Lancet 1975;2:1174–1176.Google Scholar
5.Hutton, PAN, Jones, BM, Law, DJW: Depot penicillin on prophylaxis in accident wounds. Br J Surg 1978;65:549–550.Google Scholar
6.Monzas, GL, Yeadon, A: Does the choice of suture material effect the incidence of wound infection? Br J Surg 1975;62:952–955.Google Scholar
7.Stillman, RM, Bella, FJ, Seligman, SJ: Skin wound closure. Arch Surg 1980;115:674–675.Google Scholar
8.Galvin, JR, DeSimone, D: Infection rate of simple suturing. Journal of American College of Emergency Physicians. 1976;5:332–333.Google Scholar
9.Hill, GJ: Out-Patient Surgery. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1973; p. 88.Google Scholar