AIM: To compare the effectiveness of needle-free incision suture closure with butterfly tape and traditional secondary suturing techniques in treating incision infection. METHODS:Two hundred and twenty-three patients with incision infection following hepatobiliary surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomly divided into three groups: 90 patients were closed by needle-free incision suture closure, which gradually closed the incision wound when drainage from incision infection was visibly decreased and healthy granulation tissues had grown; 79 patients were closed by butterfly bandage; another 54 patients were closed by traditional secondary suturing technique. Healing time of incision infection was calculated from the beginning of dressing change to the healing of the incision. RESULTS:Healing time in the needle-free incision suture closure group (24.2 ± 7.2 d) was significantly shorter than that in the butterfly bandage group (33.3 ± 11.2 d) and the traditional secondary suturing group (36.2 ± 15.3 d) (P < 0.05). Healing time in the butterfly bandage group appeared to be slightly shorter than that in the secondary suture group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION:Needle-free incision suture closure could gradually close the infection wound at the same time of drainage and dressing change, thereby shortening the healing time.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the effectiveness of needle-free incision suture closure with butterfly tape and traditional secondary suturing techniques in treating incision infection. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-three patients with incision infection following hepatobiliary surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomly divided into three groups: 90 patients were closed by needle-free incision suture closure, which gradually closed the incision wound when drainage from incision infection was visibly decreased and healthy granulation tissues had grown; 79 patients were closed by butterfly bandage; another 54 patients were closed by traditional secondary suturing technique. Healing time of incision infection was calculated from the beginning of dressing change to the healing of the incision. RESULTS: Healing time in the needle-free incision suture closure group (24.2 ± 7.2 d) was significantly shorter than that in the butterfly bandage group (33.3 ± 11.2 d) and the traditional secondary suturing group (36.2 ± 15.3 d) (P < 0.05). Healing time in the butterfly bandage group appeared to be slightly shorter than that in the secondary suture group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Needle-free incision suture closure could gradually close the infection wound at the same time of drainage and dressing change, thereby shortening the healing time.
Authors: D H Culver; T C Horan; R P Gaynes; W J Martone; W R Jarvis; T G Emori; S N Banerjee; J R Edwards; J S Tolson; T S Henderson Journal: Am J Med Date: 1991-09-16 Impact factor: 4.965