Furthermore, in the management of non-complicated bite wounds, primary closure and prophylactic antibiotics application in initially uninfected wounds were still controversial issues [3-6]. Whether immediate primary closure increased infection rate Our findings suggested that immediate primary closure had no statistical CHIR99021 molecular weight discrepancy compared with the dog bite facial wounds left

open in infection rate and infection time. In other words, immediate primary closure the facial dog bite lacerations neither increase the wounds infection rate nor accelerate wounds infection. However, there was a very important issue should be emphasized, that is primary closure must be enforced after thorough Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical cleaning, disinfection and debridement. Our previous study had indicated that using 0.05% iodophors instead of 2.5%-3.5% Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical iodine tincture and 75% alcohol to sterilize the reference 4 inside of the dog bite wounds could decrease the infection rate to 10% approximately without prophylactic antibiotics Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (facial wound is about 7.5%) [7]. Although, in the past 7 years over 50,000 dog bite patients visited to our clinic, some of which bitten by certified rabies dogs, none of the patients had acquired rabies. Our study had suggested that thorough

wounds debridement, normal passive immunity and active immunity were the most valid intervention to prevent rabies [7-9]. Therefore, we believed that thorough debridement without delay was not only one of the key

points in preventing rabies but also in decreasing wound infection rate. And we enforced immediate Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical primary closure to dog bite facial laceration. The effect of primary closure to facial laceration healing It was obvious in our study that immediate primary closure had great promotion in facial laceration healing. The healing time of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical taintless patients in trial group and control group was 6.57d and 9.12d respectively (P<0.05), while of in infected patients was 10.65d and 14.24d (P<0.05) respectively. It is well known that debridement is designed to make contaminated wound into clean wound, so that it can be sutured immediately and reach primary healing. Because if the wound is left open, it would get secondary healing (scar healing), and Brefeldin_A the wound would experience inflammation-hyperplasia of granulation tissue formation-scar formation in the process. The healing time will be extended, and the function would not recovery completely due to scar hyperplasia or contracture [3-6]. This was confirmed by our findings. Furthermore, in our clinical work we found that secondary healing was more poor than primary healing on scar size and appearance looking. Especially involved the eyes, nose, ears and mouth, the scar of the lacerations could induce serious deformity or complications (such as ectropion and trichiasis).