ArticleInternational wound journal2025
Choice of Primary Repair in Animal Bite Wound: A Novel Management Strategy.
Article in International wound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dog bite-associated pathogens: advances in pathogenic mechanisms and systemic clinical consequences in humans.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Infected Wound Secondary to a Hyena Bite in a Patient From Rural South Sudan: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Choice of Primary Repair in Animal Bite Wound: A Novel Management Strategy.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal bites, primarily from dogs and cats, pose a significant threat, especially to children. Wound infections are common complications caused by bacterial flora in the animal's mouth, making surgical debridement and delayed primary closure the standard treatment. However, recent studies reported no increased infection rates with primary closure compared to delayed closure after adequate debridement, particularly for facial wounds. Primary closure offers better cosmetic and functional outcomes. This study presents a case series to guide decision-making on primary suturing versus leaving wounds exposed. Thirty patients with animal bites underwent surgery, including 23 dog bites and seven cat bites. Eight patients with deep facial lacerations from dog bites received immediate debridement and primary closure with epidermal and subcutaneous sutures. None developed infections, and the cosmetic results were excellent. In contrast, all seven cat bite wounds and nine infected dog bite wounds involved high-risk factors, such as puncture wounds, hand injuries or diabetes. For high-risk wounds, early debridement and leaving the wound open after initial treatment proved effective. Primary repair of facial dog bite injuries, even complex ones, is safe and yields good aesthetic outcomes. For high-risk wounds, leaving them open after debridement is recommended to minimise infection risks.
Indexed as
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.