Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 34(6): 1006-10, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26964825

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the emergency treatment of serious dog bite lacerations on limbs and to identify whether negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was beneficial in these instances. METHODS: A total of 580 cases with serious limb lacerations due to dog bites were randomly divided into 2 groups. After thorough debridement, the limb lacerations of group A (n = 329) were left open. The remaining cases (n = 251) were randomly divided into 2 subgroups, group B and group C, which were treated with 125 and 75 mm Hg of continuous negative pressure, respectively. Antibiotics were only used in cases where there were systemic signs of wound infection, and were not given prophylactically. The infection rate, infection time, and healing time were analyzed. RESULTS: The wound infection rates of groups A, B, and C were 9.1%, 4.1%, and 3.9%, respectively. The infection times of the 3 groups were 26.3 ± 11.6, 159.8 ± 13.4, and 166.4 ± 16.2 hours, respectively. The recovery times of the infection patients in the 3 groups were 19.2 ± 4.6, 13.2 ± 2.1, and 12.7 ± 2.3 days, respectively, and in the noninfection patients, the recovery times were 15.6 ± 2.7, 10.1 ± 2.3, and 10.5 ± 1.9 days, respectively. In groups B (-125 mm Hg) and C (-75 mm Hg), the infection rate, infection time, and healing time showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients with serious dog bite laceration on limbs could benefit from NPWT. Compared with the traditional treatment of leaving the wounds open, NPWT reduced the infection rate and shortened recovery time. When NPWT was performed, low negative pressure (-75 mm Hg) had the same positive effects as high pressure (-125 mm Hg). Prophylactic antibiotics administration is not recommended for treating this kind of laceration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level II.


Subject(s)
Bites and Stings/therapy , Dogs , Extremities/injuries , Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Animals , Debridement , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Wound Healing , Young Adult
2.
BMC Emerg Med ; 13 Suppl 1: S2, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23902527

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To investigate the emergency treatment on facial laceration of dog bite wounds and identify whether immediate primary closure is feasible. METHODS: Six hundred cases with facial laceration attacked by dog were divided into two groups randomly and evenly. After thorough debridement, the facial lacerations of group A were left open, while the lacerations of group B were undertaken immediate primary closure. Antibiotics use was administrated only after wound infected, not prophylactically given. The infection rate, infection time and healing time were analyzed. RESULTS: The infection rate of group A and B was 8.3% and 6.3% respectively (P>0.05); the infection time was 26.3 ± 11.6h and 24.9 ± 13.8h respectively (P>0.05), the healing time was 9.12 ± 1.30 d and 6.57 ± 0.49 d respectively (P<0.05) in taintless cases, 14.24 ± 2.63 d and 10.65 ± 1.69 d respectively (P<0.05) in infected cases.Compared with group A, there was no evident tendency in increasing infection rate (8.3% in group A and 6.3% in group B respectively) and infection period (26.3 ± 11.6h in group A and 24.9 ± 13.8h in group B respectively) in group B. Meanwhile, in group B, the wound healing time was shorter than group A statistically in both taintless cases (9.12 ± 1.30 d in group A and 6.57 ± 0.49 d in group B respectively) and infected cases (14.24 ± 2.63 d in group A and 10.65 ± 1.69 d in group B respectively). CONCLUSION: The facial laceration of dog bite wounds should be primary closed immediately after formal and thoroughly debridement. And the primary closure would shorten the healing time of the dog bite wounds without increasing the rate and period of infection. There is no potentiality of increasing infection incidence and infection speed, compared immediate primary closure with the wounds left open. On the contrary, primary closure the wounds can promote its primary healing. Prophylactic antibiotics administration was not recommended. and the important facial organ or tissue injuries should be secondary reconditioned.


Subject(s)
Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Bites and Stings/surgery , Dogs , Facial Injuries/surgery , Lacerations/surgery , Wound Closure Techniques , Adolescent , Adult , Animals , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Chi-Square Distribution , Child , Child, Preschool , Debridement , Emergency Treatment , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Surgical Wound Infection/drug therapy , Surgical Wound Infection/etiology , Time Factors , Wound Closure Techniques/adverse effects , Wound Healing , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...