Abstract
Currently there is an elevated public awareness of the consequences of nosocomial infection, of which, 14.5% is due to surgical site infection (SSI). Hip fracture patients are at increased risk of SSI due to their age related poor medical health, immune response impairments and decreased capacity of wound healing. Superficial SSI following hip fracture surgery can affect up to 16.9% with deep infection affecting 3.7%. Deep infection represents a major complication, from which hip fracture patients are 4.5 times less likely to survive to discharge and carries a 50% mortality at 1 year, compared to 33% without infection. Treatment requires a prolonged hospital stay, additional diagnostic testing, antibiotic therapy and surgery, resulting in the total cost of treating deep infection to be more than double that of non-infected hip fracture surgery.
Wound closure aims to accurately appose the skin edges thereby promoting rapid healing and restoration of the protective dermal barrier. Failure to provide accurate skin apposition can result in delayed wound healing which has been shown to have a 3 fold risk of developing late infection. Importantly, delayed wound healing is reflected by prolonged wound ooze. We hypothesized that skin closure via sutures is better at achieving skin edge apposition than wounds closed with staples, providing more rapid wound healing. We compared staples and sutures for wound closure in hip fracture patients by using ooze duration as an outcome measure for wound healing.
Duration of wound ooze was recorded in 170 patients. 65 wounds, closed with sutures, had an average duration of ooze of 1.82 days. 105 wounds, closed with staples, had an average duration of ooze of 4.97 days. This study suggests that sutures are superior to staples with regard to early wound healing in hip fracture patients.
