Differences between conventional wound closure and a closed suction irrigation method for the prevention of surgical site infection—a comparative study

Background Wound infections can lead to high risks of postoperative septic complications. To date, the efficacy of a closed suction irrigation method of wound closure on the rate of postoperative wound infection in patients is poorly understood. Therefore, comparing this new strategy with conventional primary wound closure on the incidence of postoperative wound infection can provide value for clinical treatment. Methods Our study focused on retrospective research for patients with open abdominal wounds. All patients were referred by tertiary hospitals and registered in our hospital from January 2009 to July 2019. According to wound types, patients were divided into two groups, namely patients with wounds primarily closed as the control group and patients with wounds sutured by closed suction irrigation after primary closure as the study group. Results A total of 159 patients were collected in our present research, with 86 as study subjects and 73 as control subjects. The wound infection rate was significantly lower in the study group than the control group (P=0.017). The time interval for diagnosing wound infection from the primary operation was 4.895±0.875 days for the study group and 4.509±0.697 days for the control group. The length of hospital stay and the time taken for the wound to heal completely was shorter in patients in the study group compared to patients in the control group (8.046±2.110 vs. 8.983±2.887 days and 8.092±3.258 vs. 10.328±6.074 days, respectively). Conclusions The closed suction irrigation method significantly reduced postoperative wound infection rates in patients with a high risk of postoperative septic complications. The discoveries of our investigation should be further validated in large scope randomized controlled trials.