中文摘要：

AIM:To compare the effectiveness of needle-free incision suture closure with butterfly tape and traditional secondary suturing techniques in treating incision infection.METHODS:Two hundred and twenty-three patients with incision infection following hepatobiliary surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomly divided into three groups:90 patients were closed by needle-free incision suture closure,which gradually closed the incision wound when drainage from incision infection was visibly decreased and healthy granulation tissues had grown;79 patients were closed by butterfly bandage;another 54 patients were closed by traditional secondary suturing technique.Healing time of incision infection was calculated from the beginning of dressing change to the healing of the incision.RESULTS:Healing time in the needle-free incision suture closure group(24.2±7.2 d)was significantly shorter than that in the butterfly bandage group(33.3±11.2 d)and the traditional secondary suturing group(36.2±15.3 d)(P【0.05).Healing time in the butterfly bandage group appeared to be slightly shorter than that in the secondary suture group,but the difference was not statistically significant(P】0.05).CONCLUSION:Needle-free incision suture closure could gradually close the infection wound at the same time of drainage and dressing change,thereby shortening the healing time.

英文摘要：

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of needle-free incision suture closure with butterfly tape and traditional secondary suturing techniques in treating incision infection. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-three patients with incision infection following hepatobiliary surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomly divided into three groups: 90 patients were closed by needle-free incision suture closure, which gradually closed the incision wound when drainage from incision infection was visibly decreased and healthy granulation tissues had grown; 79 patients were closed by butterfly bandage; another 54 patients were closed by traditional secondary suturing technique. Healing time of incision infection was calculated from the beginning of dressing change to the healing of the incision. RESULTS: Healing time in the needle-free incision suture closure group (24.2 +/- 7.2 d) was significantly shorter than that in the butterfly bandage group (33.3 +/- 11.2 d) and the traditional secondary suturing group (36.2 +/- 15.3 d) (P < 0.05). Healing time in the butterfly bandage group appeared to be slightly shorter than that in the secondary suture group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Needle-free incision suture closure could gradually close the infection wound at the same time of drainage and dressing change, thereby shortening the healing time. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.