The effect of primary closure versus secondary closure techniques on postoperative wound pain in patients undergoing mandibular surgery: A meta-analysis.

This research is intended to explore the influence of second and first degree closure methods on the degree of wound pain and swelling of the face following the removal of the mandible. For the purpose of this study, three data sets, including PubMed and Embase, were selected. A separate statistical analysis was conducted on the choice of the trial, the collection of data and the risk of bias. Differences between trials were analysed with a chi-square approach, with data analyses dependent on I2. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, and a possible publication bias was evaluated. Ultimately, nine qualifying trials were chosen out of an original pool of 1922 related trials following an in-depth evaluation under the eligibility and exclusion criteria, as well as a follow-up screening. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant change in the degree of post-operation pain after 1 day operation between one or secondary closures of treatment (MD, -0.46; 95% CI, -0.93, 0.01, p = 0.06); the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in post-operation wound pain after 3 days in two group (MD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.68, 0.37, p = 0.56); the results showed that there were no statistically different effects on the post-operation wound pain after the 7th day in two groups (MD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.31, 0.03, p = 0.1). The results showed that there were no statistically different effects on the post-operation wound pain after the 1 day in two groups (MD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.38, -0.13, p < 0.0001); on the 3rd day after surgery, the face was significantly smaller swelling in the secondary closure of closure compared with the first-stage closure group (MD, -0.70; 95% CI, -1.40, -0.00, p = 0.05). While there is no obvious effect on post-operation wound pain in patients with mandibular surgery, there is significant difference in post-operation face swelling. The findings do not support a preference for any of these methods.

Primary versus secondary closure of stoma reversal skin wound: Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of primary versus secondary closure of stoma reversal skin wound in terms of wound infection. Methods: The study was conducted at Surgical B Unit of Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, Pakistan, from January 1 to December 31, 2020, and comprised adult patients of either gender undergoing stoma reversal. The patients were randomised into primary closure group A and secondary closure group B. Surgical procedure was similar in both the groups except the skin closure technique. In group A, skin was closed with interrupted polypropylene sutures, while in group B, wound was dressed with saline-soaked gauze daily using aseptic technique and was allowed to heal by secondary intention or delayed primary closure later on. Postoperatively, the wound was assessed for infection till 30th postoperative day or complete wound healing. Data was analysed using SPSS 16. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients, 35(70%) were males and 15(30%) were females. The overall mean age was 28±1.65years. There were 25(50%) patients in each of the two groups. There were 19(76%) males and 6(24%) females in group A with a mean age of 32±2.8years. There were 16(64%) males and 9(36%) females in group B with a mean age of 23±3.5years. Overall, 10(20%) patients had wound-site infections; 9(36%) in group A versus 1(4%) in group B (p=0.005). Frequency of wound infection with respect to gender, type of stoma and length of hospital stay was not significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary skin closure was found to be associated with significantly reduced wound infection rate after stoma reversal. CClinical Trial Number: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04785404.

Fixation with lower limb immobilization in primary and secondary exstrophy closure: A saving grace.

PURPOSE: A pivotal factor in the success of bladder closure in patients with classic bladder exstrophy (CBE) is the postoperative immobilization of the pelvis and lower extremities after pelvic osteotomy. This study investigates the outcomes of closure among patients with lower limb immobilization using many techniques. The authors hypothesize that the addition of external fixation (pelvic immobilization) in patients with any form of limb immobilization will be associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional exstrophy-epispadias complex database of 1415 patients was reviewed for patients with CBE who had undergone closure with available immobilization and osteotomy data. Association between closure outcomes and immobilization techniques were determined. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-Square or Fischer-Exact test as appropriate for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis via binomial logistic regression was used to identify factors leading to successful closure. RESULTS: A total of 747 closure events matching the inclusion criteria were identified. Patients included 508 males and 239 females. There were 597 primary closures (79.9%) with 150 reclosure events (20.1%). Limb immobilization was used in 627 (83.9%) of closure events. Successful closures were associated with osteotomy use (p < 0.0001) and limb immobilization (p < 0.0001); specifically, the combined anterior innominate with posterior vertical iliac osteotomy and modified Buck's traction with external fixation (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). Among the group of 33 patients who received external fixation alone and no other type of immobilization, the failure rate was 33.3%, comparatively, patients with any form of combined immobilization (external fixation with lower limb immobilization) had a failure rate of 7.1% ( Table 1). Among patients immobilized with mummy wrap, spica casting, or knee immobilizers, external fixation was associated with 3.76 increased odds of successful closure (p = 0.0005, 95% CI 1.79-7.90). In a unique group of 67 patients without pelvic osteotomy or any form of pelvic or limb immobilization, the failure rate was 74.6%. DISCUSSION: This study confirms, in a larger series, previous findings of improved outcomes when patients are immobilized with modified Buck's traction and external fixation. The authors apply this technique in most all closures and recommend this technique be utilized whenever feasible. However, regardless of the manner of lower limb immobilization, external fixation is a critical factor to optimize closures and ensure success. CONCLUSION: The results of this study clearly suggest the use of external fixation can be protective against bladder closure failure. The use of pelvic immobilization, in addition to post-operative lower limb immobilization should be strongly considered.

Efficacy of secondary vs primary closure techniques for the prevention of postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third molar extractions: A systematic review update and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether secondary closure (SC) or primary closure (PC) is better at preventing postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors sought randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PC and SC on pain, swelling, trismus, infection, and bleeding after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted independently and in duplicate. The reviewers pooled results across studies using a random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: This review identified 785 unique citations and included 40 trials. Compared with PC, SC was found to have trivial benefits for pain at day 7 and trismus within 1 week (moderate certainty). The incidence of infection and bleeding did not differ importantly between techniques (moderate certainty). However, SC is probably associated with less swelling on day 1 (standardized mean difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.73; moderate certainty) and day 3 (standardized mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.59; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence for pain on days 1 and 3 and low certainty evidence for swelling on day 7. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians choosing between closure techniques should be aware that SC probably imparts an important benefit only for swelling at days 1 and 3. There seems to be a trivial difference between the techniques in other outcomes.

Primary Closure of Pilonidal Sinus With Slide-Swing Skin Flap Compared With the Secondary Closure: A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are many surgical approaches for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) therapy, ranging from wide excision repair to less morbid excisions with primary/flap closure. The off-midline flaps, which shift the incision line away from the midline natal cleft, have been associated with lower recurrence rates than the conventional mid-line closure techniques. This single-blinded randomized controlled trial aims to compare the short/long-term efficacy and outcome of the slide-swing flap technique with the conventional secondary wound closure. METHOD AND MATERIALS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted on patients with PSD. Patients were assigned into two groups: secondary closure (control) and slide-swing flap (trial). Patients were advised to visit the surgical clinic two times weekly for the two weeks after the operation for at least six months. RESULTS: In this study, 100 patients were enrolled. They were assigned into two groups of control, and trial. The mean age of all participants was 29.15 ± 8.36 years old (age range: 18-62 years old). The mean operation time was 39.65 ± 12.63 for both groups, with the control group being 29.70 ± 7.71 and the swing flap group 46.90 ± 7.81. Patient visual analog scale (VAS) scores in both groups revealed that the trial group was associated with lower VAS scores compared with patients who underwent secondary closure (p-value = 0.006). Also, the trial group demonstrated a higher rate of healing, better cosmetic outcomes, and quicker recovery time compared with the controls. CONCLUSION: Compared with secondary closure, the slide-swing flap was associated with excellent cosmetic outcomes, disease recurrence, and recovery time. Also, the post-operative complications were significantly lower compared with the traditional method.

Comparison of primary and secondary closure with a buccal mucosal-advancement flap on postoperative course after mandibular impacted third molar surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare primary and secondary wound closure with a buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique on the postoperative course after mandibular impacted third molar surgery. METHODS: The study was conducted on 150 patients who required surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars under local anesthesia. The study subjects were divided into three groups of 50 patients each, based on the type of closure over the third molar socket. Patients in group I underwent primary closure of the socket with hermetic suturing of the flap, including the vertical release. In group II, a secondary closure was performed, leaving the socket communicating with the oral cavity. In group III, a buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique was employed to achieve primary closure of the flap over the socket while leaving the anterior vertical release, generously patent. All the patients were assessed for pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS), swelling, and mouth opening at postoperative intervals of 2, 4, and 7 days. The wound healing was assessed on day 7. RESULTS: Patients in the buccal mucosal-advancement flap group had significantly less pain and swelling and increased mouth opening compared with primary and secondary closure. Wound dehiscence was seen in 18 patients and alveolar osteitis in 4 patients in primary closure. Delayed wound healing with food accumulation was seen in 6 patients in secondary closure. No complications of flap dehiscence or breakdown were observed in the buccal mucosal-advancement flap group. CONCLUSION: This study concludes that the buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique was a superior closure technique with less pain, swelling, trismus, and satisfactory wound healing compared with both primary and secondary closure after mandibular third molar surgery.

Efficacy of secondary closure technique after extraction of third molars: a meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of two suture methods on the postoperative complications of extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M). We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases until 18 May 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the influence of any suture techniques on postoperative complications after the removal of impacted M3M. Pain, facial swelling, and trismus were measured for both the early stage (2-3 days) and late stage (5-7 days) after extraction. We identified 655 records, of which five were assessed for eligibility. All trials included had a moderate risk of bias. The analysis showed that the patients whose wounds had been closed primarily had significantly more pain than those whose wounds were closed secondarily (a wedge of mucosa) during the early stage (standardised mean difference (SMD), -0.49; 95% CI -0.71 to -0.27; P<0.0001) and the late stage (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.19; P<0.0001) after the removal of impacted M3M. Patients whose wounds were closed secondarily had less swelling (mm) at the postoperative early stage (SMD -1.12; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.66; P<0.00001) and late stage (SMD -0.51; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.33; P<0.00001). There was more trismus in the primary closure group than in the secondary group during both stages. Our findings suggest that secondary closure causes less pain, facial swelling, and trismus in both early and late stages of surgical removal of impacted M3M, and therefore it improves the quality of life by reducing postoperative discomfort.

Primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

AIM: The present study attempted the evaluation of Primary and secondary closure techniques after removal of impacted third molars in terms of healing, post-operative pain and swelling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 60 patients with impacted mandibular third molars were randomly divided into two groups of 30. Panoramic radiographs were taken to assess degree of eruption and to asses 3rd molar angulations to the long axis of 2nd molar. Teeth were extracted, and in Group 1 the socket was closed by hermetically suturing the flap. In group II a 5-6 mm wedge of mucosa distal to the second molar was removed & the flap was repositioned. Interrupted sutures were given, so as to form a triangular opening distal to second molar measuring about 5 × 5 mm. Swelling and pain were evaluated for 7 days after surgery with the VAS scale. RESULTS: Study results showed that post operative Sequale were comparatively less in secondary closure group than the primary closure group. Pain showed statistically significant difference between two groups. Pain was less in secondary closure group from day 1 to day 7. Swelling & trismus was also significantly less in secondary closure group. Evaluation of the complications of these two techniques showed that delayed wound healing occurred in 66.6% of cases (20 cases out of 30) in secondary closure group where as dehiscence of suture line occurred in 33.33% of cases (10 out of 30) in primary closure group. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in the present study enable us to conclude that, in cases of equal intra-operative difficulty, open healing of the surgical wound after removal of impacted third molars produces less post-operative swelling and pain than occurs with closed healing, by hermetically suturing the socket.

Acute Wound and Management

Acute wounds are a common presenting complaint of patients in the primary care setting. These can result from a variety of mechanisms ranging from lacerations and abrasions to stings, bites or burns. The management of acute wounds involves a proper evaluation with history, physical examination, and adequate management with local wound care, and consideration for the need for specialist review or systemic treatment. The general principles of wound management and special wounds like bite wounds and stings will be discussed.