The purpose of this study was to determine, by means of a systematic review, whether the method of wound closure in @entity532 affects the incidence of @entity2737 . A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases including MEDLINE (1980-2003), was performed, using the Cochrane search strategy, for articles on wound closure and @entity532 . Clinical trials examining the method of wound closure were selected for systematic review and all quasi-randomized and randomized trials underwent meta-analysis. Failure to close the wound as planned in delayed closure (DC) was considered indicative of a @entity2737 . Purulent drainage requiring wound opening indicated an @entity281 in the wounds closed primarily. Six randomized trials were considered adequate for meta-analysis. None independently showed a statistically significant difference in the risk of developing a @entity2737 with primary closure (PC). When pooled data were subjected to meta-analysis, PC achieved a statistically significant reduction in the relative risk of treatment failure and did not lead to an @entity2737 . Primary closure does not increase the risk of developing a @entity2737 after operation for @entity698 . Given the lack of benefit of DC, and the less traumatic, less @entity158 , and less costly nature of PC; primary closure is a safe and practical treatment option.

Primary versus delayed wound closure in XXXX : an international systematic review and meta-analysis.

@entity698 :: ('MESH:D001064', 'Disease') :: ['perforated appendicitis'] @entity532 :: ('MESH:D003925', 'Disease') :: ['complicated appendicitis'] @entity2737 :: ('MESH:D014946', 'Disease') :: ['wound infection', 'increase in wound infections'] @entity281 :: ('MESH:D007239', 'Disease') :: ['infection'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['painful']
@entity532 :: (MESH:D003925,Disease) :: ['complicated appendicitis']
