Descriptive study finds 6.8% surgical site infection frequency in appendectomy patients, suggesting imipenem irrigation may mitigate risks from comorbid conditions.
Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a significant postoperative complication following appendectomy, leading to increased morbidity, hospital stay, and healthcare costs. The use of intraoperative antibiotic wound irrigation has been proposed to reduce infection rates, though its effectiveness varies across studies. Objective: To determine the frequency of surgical site infection in patients undergoing appendectomy with imipenem solution wound irrigation at Saidu Group of Teaching Hospital, Swat. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting: Department of Surgery, Saidu Group of Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan. Duration of Study: From 13-August-2024 to 13-February-2025. Methods: A total of 132 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis based on clinical and ultrasonographic findings were enrolled. All underwent open appendectomy. Before skin closure, each surgical wound was irrigated with 1 L of normal saline containing 1 g of imipenem. Patients were followed for 30 days postoperatively for signs of SSI, which was diagnosed by the presence of purulent discharge, pain, redness, swelling, or warmth at the incision site. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, and associations between SSI and comorbid conditions were evaluated using the Chi-square test. Results: Of the 130 patients, 77 (58.3%) were males and 55 (41.7%) females, with a mean age of [insert mean ± SD if available] years. The overall SSI frequency was 9 (6.8%). Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with the development of SSI (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The incidence of surgical site infection following appendectomy with imipenem solution wound irrigation was 6.8%. The findings suggest that imipenem irrigation may effectively reduce SSI risk; however, comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes remain significant contributing factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Afgan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: