#141 Time to Laceration Repair: Definitively dogmatic to purposefully pragmatic
CLINICAL QUESTION
Is the time from injury to wound closure a risk factor for infection in traumatic lacerations?
BOTTOM LINE
There is no evidence that a “golden period” or cut-off point exists in which to repair simple, traumatic lacerations to reduce infections. Other patient and wound characteristics (e.g. diabetes, wound size, location, and contamination) are likely more predictive of infection than time to wound closure. In the absence of evidence for maximum duration, clinical judgment/experience and patient preferences should inform decisions.
Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits
Join NowAlready a CFPCLearn Member? Log in
EVIDENCE
- No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found.1
- Cohort studies:
- Emergency department (three sites, 2,663 patients):2
- No significant difference in patients requiring reassessment and infection (antibiotic treatment) at 30 days between closure <12 hours (2.9%) and >12 hours (1.4%).
- Limitations: Only 67% patient follow-up, low numbers in >12 hours group (n=72).
- Pediatrics (2,834 children):3
- No difference in infection (frank pus, lymphangitis, or cellulitis) between closure <6 hours (1.2%) and >6 hours (1.3%).
- Limitations: No information on longer time periods.
- Neither observational study controlled for type of injury, management, or other potential confounders.
- Emergency department (three sites, 2,663 patients):2
- A cross-sectional study of 5,521 patients4 and two smaller studies5,6 confirm above findings.
- Other papers that found delayed wound closure was associated with increased infections were:
- Smaller (297 patients), and did not account for other wound/patient factors.7
- Secondary analysis (example RCT of 217 patients examining role of antibiotics in wounds)8 or modeling clinician’s ability to predict wound infections.9
- A “golden period” in which to repair simple lacerations by primary closure is often discussed, with time frames ranging from four to 19 hours.6,8
- Risk factors more predictive of infection include:
- Patient variables: Diabetes (Relative Risk (RR) of infection = 2.7 - 3.9)2,4 and increasing age.4,9
- Wound characteristics: length >5cm2,4,7 (example RR Infection = 2.9)2 location2,3,5-9 (examples lower extremity RR infection = 4.1, head/neck RR infection = 0.3)2,3 and wound contamination at time of presentation2,4,9 (example RR infection 2.0 - 2.9).2,4
Latest Tools for Practice
#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?
What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?
#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives
In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
#376 Testosterone supplementation for cis-gender men: Let’s (andro-)pause for a moment (Update)
What are the benefits and harms of testosterone supplementation in healthy cis-gender men or those with age-related low testosterone?
good