A Comparative Study of Conventional Incision and Drainage versus Incision and Drainage with Primary Closure of the Wound in Acute Abscesses

Background: Acute soft tissue abscesses are a common surgical condition requiring prompt management to prevent complications. The conventional approach involves incision and drainage (I&D) with the wound left open to heal by secondary intention. Primary closure after I&D has been proposed as an alternative that may improve healing time and patient comfort without increasing complications.

Aim: To compare the clinical outcomes of conventional I&D versus I&D with primary closure in patients with acute abscesses.

Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Tamil Nadu with 60 patients presenting with uncomplicated acute abscesses. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A (n=30) underwent conventional I&D, and Group B (n=30) underwent I&D with primary closure. Outcome measures included wound healing time, hospital stay, postoperative pain, cosmetic outcomes, and complication rates. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.

Results: The mean wound healing time was significantly shorter in the primary closure group (9.2 ± 1.8 days) compared to the conventional group (16.4 ± 2.5 days) (p<0.001). Hospital stay and number of dressing changes were also reduced in Group B. Some patients (12%) in the primary closure group developed wound infections, but this was not statistically significant compared to Group A. Pain scores and patient satisfaction were better in the primary closure group.

Conclusion: Primary closure following I&D is a safe and effective alternative in selected cases of acute abscesses, offering faster recovery and improved patient outcomes without significantly increasing complications.