For a laceration containing a foreign body, which closure approach is preferred?

For a laceration containing a foreign body, which closure approach is preferred?

• A. Primary closure
• B. Tertiary intention
• C. Clean and irrigate, close only if low risk for infection
• D. Open wound and leave to heal

Answer: (C)

When a wound contains a foreign body, infection risk is elevated, so the priority is to thoroughly clean and irrigate the wound, assess how contaminated it is, and only proceed to closure if the infection risk is low. This approach allows drainage and reduces the chance of trapping bacteria inside the wound, which can lead to abscess or dehiscence. If after cleaning the wound still carries a higher risk for infection, it’s safer to leave it open or opt for delayed closure, ensuring the area drains and can be reassessed for infection before final closure. In practice, this means you would clean and irrigate first, and only close when you determine there’s a low risk of infection; otherwise, choose a management plan that does not seal in potential contamination.

When a wound contains a foreign body, infection risk is elevated, so the priority is to thoroughly clean and irrigate the wound, assess how contaminated it is, and only proceed to closure if the infection risk is low. This approach allows drainage and reduces the chance of trapping bacteria inside the wound, which can lead to abscess or dehiscence. If after cleaning the wound still carries a higher risk for infection, it’s safer to leave it open or opt for delayed closure, ensuring the area drains and can be reassessed for infection before final closure. In practice, this means you would clean and irrigate first, and only close when you determine there’s a low risk of infection; otherwise, choose a management plan that does not seal in potential contamination.