Wu Peter S, Beres Alana, Tashjian David B, Moriarty Kevin P
Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Sep;27(9):801-3. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31822c1112.
The management of dog bite wounds is controversial, and current data on risk of infection are variable and inconsistent. Furthermore, the use of prophylactic or empiric antibiotics for the treatment of these wounds is debatable. We investigate the rate of wound infections and other complications after primary repair of pediatric facial dog bite injuries.
We reviewed 87 consecutive patients aged 18 years or younger who had facial dog bite injuries from January 2003 to December 2008. Variables examined were age, sex, setting of repair, number of sutures used for repair, whether surgical drains were used, and antibiotic administration. End points measured were incidence of wound infection, need for scar revision, and any wound complications.
The mean age of patients was 6.8 years, and the majority were women (53%). All facial injuries were primarily repaired at the time of presentation either in the emergency department (ED; 46%), operating room (OR; 51%), or an outpatient setting (3%). All patients received an antibiotic course, none of the patients developed wound infection, and no subsequent scar revisions were performed. Three patients repaired in the OR underwent placement of a total of 4 closed-suction drains. The mean (SD) age of patients repaired in the OR was significantly younger than those repaired in the ED (5.7 [3.9] vs 8.0 [4.5] years, respectively; P < 0.01). The number of sutures used were greater for patients repaired in the OR than in the ED (66.4 [39.6] vs 21.7 [12.5], respectively; P < 0.01).
Intuitively, younger patients and patients with greater severity injuries are more likely to undergo repair in the OR, and this was supported by our data. Overall, we found that primary repair of pediatric facial dog bite injuries, including complex soft-tissue injuries, is safe when performed in conjunction with antibiotic administration; however, further cross-specialty studies are needed to fully characterize these end points in a larger population.
犬咬伤伤口的处理存在争议,目前关于感染风险的数据参差不齐且不一致。此外,使用预防性或经验性抗生素治疗这些伤口也存在争议。我们调查小儿面部犬咬伤一期修复术后伤口感染率及其他并发症情况。
我们回顾了2003年1月至2008年12月期间87例18岁及以下面部犬咬伤患者。研究变量包括年龄、性别、修复地点、修复所用缝线数量、是否使用手术引流以及抗生素使用情况。测量的终点指标为伤口感染发生率、瘢痕修复需求以及任何伤口并发症。
患者平均年龄为6.8岁,大多数为女性(53%)。所有面部损伤均在就诊时进行一期修复,其中在急诊科(ED;46%)、手术室(OR;51%)或门诊环境(3%)进行修复。所有患者均接受了抗生素治疗,无一例发生伤口感染,也未进行后续瘢痕修复。3例在手术室修复的患者共放置了4根闭式引流管。在手术室修复的患者的平均(标准差)年龄显著低于在急诊科修复的患者(分别为5.7[3.9]岁和8.0[4.5]岁;P<0.01)。手术室修复患者使用的缝线数量多于急诊科修复患者(分别为66.4[39.6]根和21.7[12.5]根;P<0.01)。
直观来看,年龄较小和损伤程度较重的患者更有可能在手术室进行修复,我们的数据也支持了这一点。总体而言,我们发现小儿面部犬咬伤,包括复杂软组织损伤,在使用抗生素的情况下进行一期修复是安全的;然而,需要进一步开展跨专业研究,以便在更大规模人群中全面描述这些终点指标。