Appendicectomy wound infection, drainage, and antibiotics

Vinnicombe, J.

doi:10.1002/bjs.1800510505

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cole and Bernard (1961) investigated the use of systemic antibiotics specifically in acute appendicitis and found that such treatment had no value in preventing postoperative wound sepsis. Secondly, wound drainage has long been used to prevent subcutaneous pus formation, and this method was investigated in relation to appendicectomy by Vinnicombe (1964). The method was shown to reduce wound infection, but 13 (178%) out of 73 drained cases became infected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall incidence varies widely in different reports, but probably averages about 25% (Vinnicombe, 1964;Moloney et al, 1950), being related to the severity of inflammation in the removed appendix. The incidence when a normal appendix is removed may be as high as 4% (Barnes et al, 1962), whereas in the case of perforative appendicitis it may rise to 46% (Gilmour and Lowdon, 1952).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Topical ampicillin in the appendicectomy wound: Report of double-blind trial

Rickett¹,

Jackson²

1969

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: One hundred and thirty unselected patients undergoing appendicectomy were treated with topical ampicillin powder or topical placebo powder (lactose) before closing the wound. The postoperative wound infection rates were 3% in the ampicillin-treated group and 24% in the control group, a significant difference.This difference was not influenced by the degree of inflammation in the appendix. No side-effects of treatment were observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topical ampicillin in the appendicectomy wound: Report of double-blind trial

Rickett¹,

Jackson²

1969

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors favour it (Vinnicombe, 1964;Farquharson, 1972), though others conclude that it is of no value (Brumer, 1970;Davidson et al, 1971;Farrar, 1973) or may even be detrimental (Gilmore and Martin, 1974). A controlled clinical trial is the only way of ascertaining the truth (Editorial, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Wound infection following appendicectomy: The effect of extraperitoneal wound drainage and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis

Everson

Fossard

Nash

et al. 1977

Journal of British Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The value of extraperitoneal wound drainage and a 3-day course of prophylactic systemic cephaloridine used both separately and together have been assessed in a prospective controlled randomized trial involving 246 patients undergoing appendicectomy at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. Extraperitoneal wound drainage was shown to reduce significantly the incidence of postoperative wound infection in patients with a gangrenous or perforated appendix (P less than 0-025). Prophylactic cephaloridine significantly reduced the overall incidence of wound infection (P less than 0-02) and was also effective when the appendix was gangrenous or perforated (P less than 0-01). A highly significant reduction in wound infection was achieved when the appendix was gangrenous or perforated by the addition of wound drainage to the antibiotic regimen (P less than 0-001).

show abstract

“…The significance of the reduction of wound sepsis in the acute group is therefore unaffected. The effect of wound drainage on the incidence of wound infection in the gangrenous and/or perforated group is difficult to assess from this trial, but its benefit has been previously established (Vinnicombe 1964). It is therefore unlikely that the presence of a drain in the wound increased the incidence of sepsis in this group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of a wound drain was left to the discretion of the individual surgeon performing the operation and was normally used where purulent intra‐peritoneal fluid was present. (Vinnicombe 1964). The drain was brought through the lateral end of the wound, and not through a separate‐stab.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%