Our results suggested that the SSI rates were not significantly different between the two techniques in either open appendectomy or other operations. In addition, the length of hospital stay was 2 days significantly longer in DPC than PC. Our finding was consistent with a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that found lack of benefit of DPC over the PC in complicated appendicitis in children [15]. However, our results were pooled based on high heterogeneity of effects without explanation of source of heterogeneities.

Our study focused on studies applying only open appendectomy. In the find more current era with increasing use of minimally selleck chemicals llc invasive approach, evidences from observational studies showed that laparoscopic appendectomy was better than open appendectomy in decreasing SSI rate in complicated appendicitis [28, 29], but conversion rate from laparoscopic to open appendectomy was as high as 13% to 16% [29, 30]. Although the laparoscopic appendectomy has advantages over the conventional open appendectomy, this approach is mostly available in tertiary cares or school of medicine hospitals, and it also very much depends on experience of surgeon. Therefore, open appendectomy is still useful where limited resources.

Contamination of the wound from environmental bacteria during dressing can increase the risk of infection in DPC [7]. Therefore, frequency of dressing, sterile technique, and suturing should be considered and concerned before CH5183284 research buy applying DPC in a different setting. The SSI after DPC can be classified into

two types, i.e., failure to close and after resuture the wound. The former causes less morbidity than the later because of pain, discomfort, and suffering of SSI during Morin Hydrate infection time before diagnosis is made. Although our results found similar SSI after PC and DPC, applying PC should be cautioned particularly in highly contaminated wounds or in immune-compromised hosts. Risk classification scores that can predict SSI after PC and after resuturing should be able to aid physicians to make decisions which technique between DPC and PC should be applied. The strength of our studies is that we included only RCTs that could minimize selection and confounding biases. A sensitivity was performed by including RCTs with other operations in the main pooling of RCTs with complicated appendectomy. A pooled magnitude of effect of DPC vs PC was estimated and reported. However, our results were pooled based on high heterogeneity across included studies. A number of included RCTs was also quite small. As a result, the range of estimation of effect was imprecise, i.e., varied from 0.46, 1.73. Furthermore, most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment.