ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2020
A randomized trial analyzing the effects of primary versus delayed primary closure of incision on wound healing in patients with hollow viscus perforation.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delayed primary skin closure reduce surgical site infection following surgery for gastrointestinal perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Practical Review on Delayed Primary Closure: Basic Science and Clinical Applications.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDelayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin has been suggested to decrease superficial surgical site infection (SSSI) in patients undergoing surgery for peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation, but there is no consensus. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary closure (PC) and DPC of the skin in terms of SSSI, fascial dehiscence and length of hospital stay (LOS). MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty patients, undergoing emergency surgery for perforation peritonitis, were randomized to PC (n= 30) and DPC (n= 30). Patients in the DPC group underwent skin closure four or more days after surgery when the wound was clinically considered appropriate for closure. Patients in the PC group had skin closure at the time of surgery.
resultsIncidence of SSSI was significantly less in the DPC group (7.4%) compared to the PC (42.9%) (p= 0.004). However, the median time of DPC was the 10th POD, i.e., these wounds required considerable time to become clinically suitable for closure. Incidence of fascial dehiscence was comparable between the two groups (p= 0.67). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13.8 days in the DPC group compared to 13.5 days in PC; the difference was not significant (p= 0.825).
conclusionDPC of the skin incision resulted in the reduction of SSSI. However, this did not translate into a reduction in hospital stay, as it took considerable time for these wounds to become appropriate for DPC, thus bringing into question any real advantage of DPC over PC.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.