This site is intended for Healthcare Professionals only
Back to CKS

Injuries

Lacerations

Last revised in December 2022

A laceration is a tearing or splitting of the skin commonly caused by blunt trauma, or an incision caused by a sharp object, such as a knife.

Lacerations: Summary

  • A laceration is a deep cut or tear in the skin and/or underlying tissue, commonly caused by blunt trauma (such as a fall or collision), incision by a sharp object, or mammalian bite.
  • Infection is the most common complication of a laceration. However, there may be injuries to deeper structures, such as the nerves, blood vessels, muscles, bones, and/or tendons.
  • The risk of infection is high in people with a laceration contaminated with soil, faeces, body fluids, or pus. Other risk factors for infection include diabetes, increasing age, stellate shape or jagged wound margins, and wound length of more than 5 cm.
  • Assessment of a person with a laceration involves:
    • Obtaining a detailed history, including the time and cause of the injury, as well as the person's past medical history, allergies, and tetanus vaccine history.
    • Examining the size, shape, and location of the wound.
    • Assessing for injuries to deeper structures.
    • Assessing for signs or symptoms of infection.
  • Primary care management of a laceration involves:
    • Cleaning, closing, and dressing wounds at low risk of infection. Infected wounds or wounds at high risk of infection should be cleaned and dressed initially; the wound can be closed after 2–5 days if there are no signs or symptoms of infection.
    • Considering the need for antibiotics to treat, or reduce the risk of, infection. A swab of the wound should be taken before starting antibiotic treatment.
    • Considering the need for tetanus prophylaxis for susceptible wounds, such as those exposed to soil or other external contaminants.
    • Giving appropriate information and advice to the person, including that they should take paracetamol or ibuprofen for pain relief; keep the wound clean and dry to reduce the risk of infection; and seek medical attention if they develop signs or symptoms of infection.
    • Arranging appropriate follow-up, for example, to close a wound or remove wound closure. 
  • Hospital admission should be arranged if the person:
    • Has a severe infection or is systemically unwell.
    • Has signs or symptoms of tetanus (generalized rigidity and spasm of skeletal muscles, including lockjaw). 
  • Referral to A&E is recommended if:
    • The expertise to manage the wound is not available in primary care.
    • There is possible vascular, nerve, tendon, or bone damage.
    • It is a facial laceration, particularly if it crosses the margins of the lips, nose, or ears.
    • It is a laceration of the palm of the hand with any sign of infection.
    • There is associated cellulitis over a joint.
    • There is significant contamination of the wound.
    • There is a possible foreign body remaining in the wound after cleaning, including all injuries caused by glass.
    • The laceration is complex, widely gaping, or extensively devitalized.
    • There is significant tissue loss or inability to primarily close wound edges.
    • Local anaesthesia is unsuitable, for example, in children or people with needle phobia.
    • It is a high-risk tetanus-prone wound. 

Have I got the right topic?

From birth onwards.

This CKS topic covers the management of lacerations in primary care.

This CKS topic does not cover the management of bites, burns, or skin tears (traumatic injuries presenting in people with fragile skin, including neonates and elderly people). 

There are separate CKS topics on Bites - human and animal and Burns and scalds. 

The target audience for this CKS topic is healthcare professionals working within the NHS in the UK, and providing first contact or primary healthcare.

How up-to-date is this topic?

Changes

December 2022 — reviewed. A literature search was conducted in November 2022 to identify evidence-based guidelines, UK policy, systematic reviews, and key randomized controlled trials published since the last revision of this topic. The following changes have been made:

  • The assessment section has been rewritten.
  • The management section has been restructured and rewritten.
  • The recommendations on antibiotic choices for infected wounds have been removed, and a link to the CKS topic on Cellulitis has been added.

Previous changes

April 2021 — minor update. The definition of incision has been clarified. 

January 2021 — minor update. The contraindications and drug interactions for erythromycin have been updated in line with a drug safety update issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). 

October 2018 — minor update. The section on the adverse effects of metronidazole has been updated. 

June 2017 — reviewed. A literature search was conducted in May 2017 to identify evidence-based guidelines, UK policy, systematic reviews, and key randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last revision of this topic. No major changes to recommendations have been made.

July 2015 — minor update. Links to the CKS topics on Analgesia - mild-to-moderate pain and NSAIDs - prescribing issues have been added to the section on Prescribing information.

February 2013 — minor update. The 2013 quality, innovation, productivity and prevention (QIPP) options for local implementation have been added to this topic. 

October 2012 — minor update. The 2012 QIPP options for local implementation have been added to this topic.   

August 2012 — reviewed. A literature search was conducted in August 2012 to identify evidence-based guidelines, UK policy, systematic reviews, and key RCTs published since the last revision of this topic. No major changes to recommendations have been made.

July 2011 — minor update. More exact paracetamol dosing for children has been introduced by the MHRA. Prescriptions have been updated to reflect the revised dosing. 

June 2011 — minor update. The 2010/2011 QIPP options for local implementation have been added to this topic. 

October 2010 — topic structure revised to ensure consistency across CKS topics. No changes to clinical recommendations have been made.

August 2009 — minor update. Advice from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on when to suspect child maltreatment has been added to this topic. 

July to October 2007 — converted from CKS guidance to CKS topic structure. The evidence base has been reviewed in detail, and recommendations are more clearly justified and transparently linked to the supporting evidence. More detailed information has been included on how to assess and manage a laceration at high risk of infection.

October 2006 — minor update. Analgesia prescriptions have been updated because new doses of ibuprofen for children are recommend in the British National Formulary (BNF). 

November 2005 — minor technical update. 

July 2005 — minor correction to reference list. 

September 2004 — updated to include the new combined tetanus vaccines Pediacel®, Repevax®, and Revaxis®. 

March 2004 — reviewed. Validated in May 2004 and issued in July 2004.

May 2001 — reviewed. Validated in July 2001 and issued in October 2001.

August 1998 — written.

Update

New evidence

Evidence-based guidelines

No new evidence-based guidelines since 1 November 2022.

HTAs (Health Technology Assessments)

No new HTAs since 1 November 2022.

Economic appraisals

No new economic appraisals relevant to England since 1 November 2022.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

No new systematic reviews or meta-analyses published since 1 November 2022.

Primary evidence

No new primary evidence which reaches the CKS threshold for inclusion published since 1 November 2022.

New policies

No new national policies or guidelines since 1 November 2022.

New safety alerts

No new safety alerts since 1 November 2022.

Changes in product availability

No changes in product availability since 1 November 2022.

Goals and outcome measures

Goals

To support primary healthcare professionals to:

  • Reduce the risk of infection and treat any established infection in a person with a laceration.
  • Achieve satisfactory wound healing with good cosmetic outcomes in a person with a laceration.

Outcome measures

No outcome measures were found during the review of this topic.

Audit criteria

No audit criteria were found during the review of this topic.

QOF indicators

No QOF indicators were found during the review of this topic.

QIPP - Options for local implementation

No QIPP indicators were found during the review of this topic.

NICE Quality standards

No NICE Quality standards were found during the review of this topic.

Background information

What is it?

  • A laceration is a deep cut or tear in the skin and/or underlying tissue commonly caused by blunt trauma (such as a fall or collision), incision by a sharp object, or mammalian bite [Newman, 2022].

How common is it?

  • Lacerations account for a significant number of visits to A&E departments.
    • In 2005, more than 13 million people were treated in A&E departments in the US for lacerations, representing almost 12% of all A&E presentations. Almost 40% of the lacerations were related to blunt trauma [García-Gubern, 2010].

What are the complications?

  • Infection is the most common complication of a laceration. Other possible complications include:
    • Injuries to deeper structures, such as nerves, blood vessels, muscles, bones, and/or tendons [RCH, 2022].
    • Scarring [Cals, 2012].

Diagnosis

How should I assess a person with a laceration?

  • Take a detailed history. Ask about:
    • The time of the injury.
    • The cause of the injury, for example, a sharp object or fall.
    • Past medical history, including conditions that could impair wound healing and/or increase the risk of complications, for example, diabetes, vascular disease, nutritional deficiency, or use of immunosuppressive drugs (such as chemotherapy).
    • Immunization status, specifically the tetanus vaccine history.
    • Allergies, specifically to latex, anaesthetics, or antibiotics.
  • Examine the person.
    • Measure the length, width, and depth of the laceration.
    • Assess for:
      • Vascular damage, characterized by arterial bleeding from the wound, loss of pulse, or poor perfusion distal to the injury.
      • Nerve damage, characterized by loss of light touch or motor function distal to the injury. 
      • Injury to a tendon, bone, or joint.
      • Impairment of blood supply to surrounding tissue.
  • Assess for signs or symptoms of infection, such as general malaise, fever, rigors, erythema, and/or lymphadenopathy. 
    • If there are no signs of infection, assess the risk of infection.
    • A laceration is at high risk of infection if it is contaminated with soil, faeces, body fluids, or pus. Other risk factors for infection include:
      • Wound length of more than 5 cm.
      • Age older than 65 years.
      • Diabetes mellitus.
      • Stellate shape or jagged wound margins.
      • Devitalized tissue and/or foreign body in the wound.
      • Presentation more than 6 hours after injury (although there is some evidence that this may not be as important as previously thought).
    • Clinical judgement and individual risk assessment are required when considering the risk of infection. For example, the degree of jaggedness of the wound edge may be slight, moderate, or severe, and diabetes may be well controlled or poorly controlled.
  • Assess for signs or symptoms of tetanus infection (generalized rigidity and spasm of skeletal muscles, including lockjaw).
  • Although rare, suspect child maltreatment if a child has lacerations, abrasions, or scars and the explanation is inconsistent or unreliable.
    • Examples include lacerations, abrasions, or scars:
      • On a child who is not independently mobile.
      • That are multiple.
      • With a symmetrical distribution.
      • On areas usually protected by clothing (such as the back, chest, abdomen, axilla, and genital area).
      • On the eyes, ears, or sides of the face.
      • On the neck, ankles, or wrists, that look like ligature marks.
    • See the CKS topic on Child maltreatment - recognition and management for more information.

Basis for recommendation

History and assessment

Risk factors for infection

  • Evidence from a cross-sectional study of people with traumatic lacerations showed that an increased likelihood of wound infection was associated with age, history of diabetes, laceration width, and the presence of a foreign body in the wound. Laceration location on the head/neck was associated with a decreased risk of infection [Hollander et al, 2001].
  • Evidence from a prospective study of people with traumatic lacerations showed that diabetes, wound contamination, wound length greater than 5 cm, and location on the lower extremity were important risk factors for wound infection [Quinn, 2014]. 
  • A review article defines high-risk wounds as those with comorbidities, gross contamination, involvement of deeper structures, and stellate shape [Mankowitz, 2017].  

Presentation more than 6 hours after injury 

  • It has been previously suggested that there is a 'golden period' beyond which lacerations are at higher risk of infection [Forsch, 2017,; Turner, 2019a]. However, studies have confirmed that delays in wound closure rarely confer increased rates of infection; although, comorbidities such as diabetes, HIV infection, and cancer, should be considered [Mankowitz, 2017]. 
    • In a prospective study of people with traumatic lacerations, the median wound closure time for the lacerations in the wound infection group was statistically significantly longer than in the non-infection group. However, the authors acknowledged that the study had several limitations (including the small sample size and various confounding factors), and concluded that further large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between wound infection and time of repair [Waseem, 2012].
    • A Cochrane systematic review found no systematic evidence to guide clinical decision‐making regarding the timing of closure of traumatic wounds [Eliya-Masam, 2013].
    • In a second prospective study of people with traumatic lacerations, there were no differences in the infection rates for lacerations closed before or after 12 hours [Quinn, 2014]. 

When to suspect child maltreatment

  • These recommendations are based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline Child maltreatment: when to suspect maltreatment in under 18s [NICE, 2017].

Management

Scenario: Management

From birth onwards.

How should I manage a person with a laceration?

Basis for recommendation

The rationale for these recommendations are discussed in the relevant basis for recommendation sections.

When should I admit or refer a person with a laceration?

  • Admit to hospital if:
    • The person has a severe infection or is systemically unwell. 
    • The person has signs or symptoms of tetanus infection (generalized rigidity and spasm of skeletal muscles, including lockjaw). 
  • Refer to A&E if:
    • The expertise to manage the wound is not available in primary care.
    • There is vascular damage, characterized by arterial bleeding from the wound, loss of pulse, or poor perfusion distal to the injury.
    • There is nerve damage, characterized by loss of light touch or motor function distal to the injury.
    • There is injury to a tendon, including injury to the sheath.
    • There is a bony injury or fracture. 
    • It is a facial laceration for which a good cosmetic repair is important, particularly a laceration that crosses the margins of the lips, nose, or ears.
    • It is a laceration of the palm of the hand with any signs of infection.
    • The laceration is associated with cellulitis over a joint.
    • The laceration is complex, widely gaping, or extensively devitalized.
    • There is significant contamination of tissues.
    • There is a possible foreign body remaining in the wound after cleaning, including all injuries caused by glass.
    • There is significant tissue loss or inability to primarily close wound edges.
    • The person has a high-risk tetanus-prone wound and human tetanus immunoglobulin is not available in primary care.
    • Local anaesthesia is unsuitable, for example, in children and people with needle phobia, or if there is a need for extensive wound exploration or debridement.

Basis for recommendation

These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Cole, 2003; Worster, 2015; Turner, 2019a], a textbook [Newman, 2022], and on what CKS considers to be good clinical practice.

How should I clean the wound?

These recommendations are intended as a brief guide, as lacerations should be managed by a professional with experience in wound management. If the expertise is not available in primary care, the person should be referred to A&E.

  • Disinfect the surrounding skin with an antiseptic. Avoid getting antiseptic into the wound.
  • Keep hair out of the wound. If necessary, clip the hair around the wound with scissors (rather than shaving). Apply simple ointment to flatten any remaining hair away from the wound.
  • Debride devitalized tissue, and pick out as much foreign material as possible.  
    • When debriding or exploring the wound, anaesthetize the area. The pain associated with the injection can be reduced by:
      • Using a 25–gauge needle.
      • Warming the anaesthetic to body temperature before use.
      • Injecting through the cut edge of the wound (rather than through a new puncture). 
      • Infusing the anaesthetic slowly.
      • Using a topical anaesthetic (such as EMLA cream) before infiltration with a local anaesthetic.   
  • Irrigate the wound with potable water, cooled boiled water, or normal saline.
    • For lacerations that are not visibly contaminated, low-pressure irrigation using a syringe is sufficient.
    • For lacerations that are visibly contaminated, irrigate at high pressure with a syringe and a green needle to remove visible debris from the wound.
  • Refer for radiography if there is a possible foreign body remaining in the wound after cleaning, including all injuries caused by glass.

Basis for recommendation

Wound cleaning measures

Use of local anaesthetics

  • Injectable and topical local anaesthetics reduce pain during the treatment of lacerations, and may be used alone or in combination [Forsch, 2017,].
  • The recommendations on how to reduce pain associated with the anaesthetic injection are based on expert opinion in a review article [Forsch, 2017,] and a textbook [Newman, 2022].
  • Evidence from a Cochrane systematic review (search date: December 2016) showed that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non‐invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing lacerations. However, the overall quality of the evidence was low [Tayeb, 2017].

Irrigating the wound 

  • Evidence from a Cochrane systematic review suggested that drinkable tap water, boiled and cooled water, and normal saline are all comparable wound cleansing agents, and that using drinkable tap water to clean acute wounds does not appear to increase the infection rate [Fernandez and Griffiths, 2012].
  • An updated version of this review reported that [Fernandez, 2022]:
    • Cleansing with tap water may make little or no difference to wound healing compared with no cleansing; there were no data relating to the impact on wound infection.
    • The effects of cleansing with tap water, cooled boiled water, or distilled water compared with cleansing with saline were uncertain, as was the effect of distilled water compared with cooled boiled water.
    • Data for other outcomes were limited across all the comparisons considered and were either uncertain or suggested that there may be little or no difference in the outcome.
    • All the evidence identified in the review was low or very low certainty.
  • Based on the uncertainty of the evidence, the authors of the Cochrane systematic review concluded that patient preference and availability of the cleansing agent should be considered when choosing a wound cleansing method [Fernandez, 2022].

How should I close the wound?

These recommendations are intended as a brief guide, as lacerations should be managed by a professional with experience in wound management. If the expertise is not available in primary care, the person should be referred to A&E.

  • Determine an appropriate method of wound closure.
    • For clean, non-infected wounds, immediate (primary) closure (with a meticulous approximation of wound edges) is recommended. The wound edges are brought and kept together by sutures, staples, tissue adhesives, or skin closure strips.
    • For infected wounds or wounds with a high risk of infection, the wound should be cleaned and dressed, and then observed for 2–5 days to ensure no infection is apparent before it is closed (delayed primary closure).
    • For chronic wounds or wounds in which the edges cannot be approximated, the wound should be allowed to heal naturally with no attempts to aid wound closure (secondary closure). Leaving the wound open allows granulation tissue to form contraction of the wound edges and eventual epithelialization. 
  • Sutures are used to close wounds. 
    • Suturing is preferred for wounds longer than 5 cm, or those 5 cm or shorter when the wound:
      • Requires careful approximation, for example, lacerations that cross skin tension lines or span delicate structures (such as the eyebrow or vermillion border).
      • Is subject to excessive flexing and tension (such as over joints or thick dermis), or excessive wetting.
    • There are two main types of sutures:
      • Absorbable sutures are made from either natural mammalian collagen or synthetic polymers. They break down in the body and do not require removal.
      • Nonabsorbable sutures are made from synthetic materials, such as nylon, polybutester, polypropylene, or natural silk, and require removal after placement. 
    • The choice of suture technique will depend on the type of wound, depth, degree of tension, and desired cosmetic results. As a guide:
      • Simple interrupted sutures can be used for most wounds. The use of separate stitches allows for a better approximation of the skin and fascia, resulting in more cosmetically appealing results. 
      • Simple running sutures are the best choice for long wounds with minimal tension, or for rapid hemorrhage control. They are fast and effective; however, all sutures are lost if one suture is cut by mistake or removed for drainage.
      • Mattress sutures are appropriate for deeper wounds. The deeper penetration into skin layers minimizes tension and allows for better closure at the wound edges. They can be applied vertically or horizontally.
    • Suturing should be done under local anaesthetic. The pain associated with the injection can be reduced by:
      • Using a 25–gauge needle.
      • Warming the anaesthetic to body temperature before use.
      • Injecting through the cut edge of the wound (rather than through a new puncture). 
      • Infusing the anaesthetic slowly.
      • Using a topical anaesthetic (such as EMLA cream) before infiltration with a local anaesthetic. 
  • Surgical staples are alternatives to sutures and are useful for linear lacerations on the scalp or extremities. 
    • They are fast, create loose closure, allow for drainage, and can be used for unclean wounds.
    • However, they produce a poorer cosmetic result than other methods of closure and should be avoided if cosmetic outcome is important.
  • Tissue adhesives (or glues) are liquid cyanoacrylate monomers that polymerize into long solid chains upon contact with blood or a wound surface, thereby holding wound edges together.
    • They can be used to close wounds that:
      • Are small (5 cm or shorter), clean, and non-infected.
      • Have edges that are easily apposed without leaving any dead space.
      • Are not subject to excessive flexing, tension, or wetting.
      • Are not in a hair-bearing area, unless hair apposition technique is being used.
      • Are not a result of mammalian bite.
  • Adhesive skin-closure strips are sterile strips that are used for wound closure.
    • Skin closure strips can be effective for closing small, simple lacerations in low-tension areas with well-approximated edges; however, their lack of tensile strength can lead to wound dehiscence.
    • They are more commonly useful in achieving initial wound edge approximation, to be followed by definitive fixation with a tissue adhesive.

Basis for recommendation

Methods of wound closure

Choice of wound closure

  • The information is based on trial evidence [Farion, 2002; Zempsky, 2004; Heinemann-Celnikier, 2019; Rabbany, 2019], expert opinion in review articles [Cole, 2003; Forsch, 2017,; Turner, 2019a; Turner, 2019b; deLemos, 2022], and a textbook [Azmat, 2022].
    • The default closure method for skin lacerations is suturing. However, certain acute lacerations may be amenable to needle-free or non-surgical techniques (such as topical skin adhesives and adhesive strips) that do not necessitate further trauma to normal skin edges [Turner, 2019a]. 
    • Staples are cost-effective, quick to use, require minimal training, and have similar healing times and infection rates as sutures [Heinemann-Celnikier, 2019; Rabbany, 2019; Azmat, 2022]. However, they produce a poorer cosmetic result than other methods of closure and should be avoided if cosmetic outcome is important [Forsch, 2017,]. Although staples are quicker to use than other methods of closure, this is rarely a significant factor in primary care (compared with a busy casualty department where this is a significant benefit) [Cole, 2003].
    • Evidence from a Cochrane systematic review suggests that tissue adhesives are an acceptable alternative to standard closure techniques for people with simple lacerations, shorter than 5 cm, that are not subject to flexing or tension. They produce similar cosmetic results, are quicker to apply, and are less painful [Farion, 2002]. A further literature search for this Cochrane systematic review in 2007 did not find any new evidence to necessitate an update to these conclusions.
    • Evidence from a randomized controlled trial (n = 100) indicates that skin closure strips have very similar outcomes as tissue adhesives when used to close simple facial lacerations in children [Zempsky, 2004].

How should wound closure be removed?

These recommendations are intended as a brief guide, as lacerations should be managed by a professional with experience in wound management. If the expertise is not available in primary care, the person should be referred to A&E.

  • For lacerations closed with nonabsorbable (non-dissolvable) sutures, arrange a follow-up appointment to remove the sutures.
    • Nonabsorbable sutures should be removed within 14 days of placement, depending on the depth and location of the wound, and the degree of tension the wound was closed under. As a general guide:
      • Sutures on the head and neck are usually removed 5–7 days after placement.
      • Sutures on the trunk or extremities are usually removed 10–14 days after placement.
      • Sutures in wounds under greater tension may have to be left in place slightly longer (up to 21 days or longer).
  • For lacerations closed with absorbable (dissolvable) sutures, advise that:
    • Absorbable sutures break down in the body and do not require removal.
    • The time it takes for the sutures to disappear can vary: most types should start to dissolve or fall out within 7–14 days; however, some may take weeks or months before they disappear completely.
  • For lacerations closed with staples, arrange a follow-up appointment to remove the staples.
    • Surgical staples should be removed within 14 days of placement, depending on the depth and location of the wound, and the degree of tension the wound was closed under. As a general guide:
      • Staples on the head and neck are usually removed 5–7 days after placement.
      • Staples on the trunk or extremities are usually removed 10–14 days after placement.
      • Staples in wounds under greater tension may have to be left in place slightly longer (up to 21 days or longer).
  • For lacerations closed with tissue adhesives, advise the person that:
    • The glue will peel off in 5–8 days.
    • An antibiotic ointment, acetone, or petroleum jelly can help facilitate the removal.
  • For lacerations closed with adhesive strips, advise the person that:
    • The adhesive strips need to stay in place for 5–7 days to allow the wound to heal.
    • To remove the strips, they should begin at one end of the incision and gently peel the skin closure off toward the other end of the incision. If any adhesive residue remains on the skin, it can be gently removed with baby oil, lotion, or medical adhesive remover.

Basis for recommendation

How should I dress the wound?

These recommendations are intended as a brief guide, as lacerations should be managed by a professional with experience in wound management. If the expertise is not available in primary care, the person should be referred to A&E.

  • The choice of wound dressing will depend on the type of wound and the stage of the healing process, patient preference or tolerance, site of the wound, and cost.  
    • See the British National Formulary (BNF) for suggestions on choices of dressings for different types of wounds.
    • As a general guide:
      • Non-absorbent, low-adherence dressings are suitable for clean, granulating, lightly exuding wounds without necrosis. They are placed directly on the wound bed, and protect the wound bed from direct contact with secondary dressings. 
      • Perforated film absorbent dressings are suitable only for wounds with mild to moderate amounts of exudate. Dressings with an absorbent cellulose or polymer wadding layer are suitable for use on moderately to heavily exuding wounds.
      • Advanced wound dressings are designed to control the environment for wound healing, for example, to donate fluid (hydrogels), maintain hydration (hydrocolloids), or absorb wound exudate (alginates and foams).
      • Hydrogel, hydrocolloid, and medical grade honey dressings can be used to deslough wounds by promoting autolytic debridement.
      • Sterile larvae (maggots) are also available for biosurgical removal of wound debris.

Basis for recommendation

The information on wound dressings is based on expert opinion in the British National Formulary (BNF) [BNF, 2022]. 

  • Low-adherence, absorbent dressings are recommended for wounds with little or no exudate because:
    • Exudate from the wound discolours the dressing and is easily seen; therefore, the wound can be monitored without removing the dressing.
    • They can absorb small quantities of exudate, which prevents the wound from becoming macerated, but maintain a moist environment for optimal wound healing.
  • Alginate or foam dressings are recommended for wounds with moderate or heavier quantities of exudate because these have a greater capacity to absorb exudate.

How should I manage an infected laceration?

  • If there are no signs of infection, but the laceration is at high risk of infection:
    • Consider the need for prophylactic antibiotic treatment.
      • If antibiotic treatment is indicated, see the CKS topic on Cellulitis - acute for detailed information on antibiotic choices.
      • Take a swab of the wound before starting antibiotic treatment. 
    • Review the person 2–5 days after the initial presentation:
      • If there are signs of infection and the person did not receive prophylactic antibiotics, prescribe antibiotic treatment and arrange a further review. Take a swab of the wound before starting antibiotic treatment.
      • If there are signs of infection despite initial antibiotic treatment, review the swab results, change the antibiotics if indicated, and arrange further review. 
  • If there are signs of infection and admission or referral is not indicated:
    • Prescribe empirical oral antibiotics.
      • See the CKS topic on Cellulitis - acute for detailed information on antibiotic choices.
      • Take a swab of the wound before starting antibiotic treatment. 
    • Review the person 2–5 days after the initial presentation. 
      • If signs of infection persist, review the swab results, change the antibiotics if indicated, and arrange a further review. 

Basis for recommendation

Taking a swab before starting antibiotic treatment

  • This recommendation is based on what CKS considers to be good clinical practice. If empirical antibiotic treatment is ineffective, the result of the swab can be used to determine an appropriate antibiotic treatment.

When should I offer tetanus prophylaxis to a person with a laceration?

  • Check the tetanus immunization status of the person with a laceration. A fully immunized person will have had a primary course of three tetanus vaccines, followed by two boosters spaced 10 years apart. For further details, see the CKS topic on Immunizations - childhood.
    • For children under 5 years who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses):
      • A tetanus vaccine is not required.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • For children aged 5–10 years who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses) and preschool booster:
      • A tetanus vaccine is not required.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • For children aged 5–10 years who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses) but no preschool booster:
      • For a clean wound, a tetanus vaccine is not required.
      • For a tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine.
      • For a high-risk tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine plus one dose of human tetanus immunoglobulin (HTIG) in a different site. If HTIG is not available in primary care, refer the person to the A&E department. Human normal immunoglobulin (HNIG) may be used as an alternative to HTIG.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • For people aged 11 years and over who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses) with the last dose within 10 years:
      • A tetanus vaccine is not required.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • For people aged 11 years and over who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses) but the last dose was more than 10 years ago:
      • For a clean wound, a tetanus vaccine is not required.
      • For a tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine.
      • For a high-risk tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine plus one dose of HTIG in a different site. If HTIG is not available in primary care, refer the person to the A&E department. HNIG may be used as an alternative to HTIG.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • For people who have not received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (at least 3 doses):
      • For a clean wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine.
      • For a tetanus-prone wound or high-risk tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine plus one dose of HTIG in a different site. If HTIG is not available in primary care, refer the person to the A&E department. HNIG may be used as an alternative to HTIG.
      • Continue with the recommended vaccination schedule, to ensure future immunity.
    • If the person is not immunized or their immunization status is unknown or uncertain:
      • For a clean wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine.
      • For a tetanus-prone wound or high-risk tetanus-prone wound, administer an immediate reinforcing dose of the tetanus vaccine plus one dose of HTIG in a different site. If HTIG is not available in primary care, refer the person to the A&E department. HNIG may be used as an alternative to HTIG.
      • A full course of tetanus immunization is likely to be required.
    • If the person is fully immunized but is severely immunosuppressed:
      • Consider the need for additional boosting and/or immunoglobulin as they may not be adequately protected against tetanus, despite having been fully immunized. 

Tetanus infection

  • Tetanus is an acute disease caused by the action of tetanus toxin, released following infection by the bacterium Clostridium tetani.
    • C. tetani spores are present in soil or manure, and may be introduced into the body through a laceration, puncture wound, burn, or scratch.
    • The incubation period of the disease is usually between 3–21 days, although it may range from one day to several months, depending on the character, extent, and localization of the wound.
    • Tetanus is not spread from person to person.
  • Tetanus infection can present as generalized (the most common presentation), localized, or cephalic.
    • Generalized tetanus is characterized by trismus (lockjaw), tonic contractions, and spasms. Tonic contractions and spasms may lead to dysphagia, opisthotonus, and a rigid abdomen. In severe cases, they may cause respiratory difficulties. Autonomic instability is typical. Consciousness is not affected. 
    • Localized tetanus is characterized by rigidity and spasms confined to the area around the site of the infection, and may be more common in partially immunized people. Localized symptoms can continue for weeks or may develop into generalized tetanus.
    • Cephalic tetanus is localized tetanus after a head or neck injury, primarily involving the musculature supplied by the cranial nerves. 
  • Any wound can give rise to tetanus. However, clean wounds (defined as wounds less than 6 hours old, non-penetrating with negligible tissue damage) are considered to have a low likelihood of harbouring C. tetani spores and of developing the anaerobic and acidic conditions that promote spore germination.
    • Tetanus-prone wounds include:
      • Puncture-type injuries acquired in a contaminated environment, such as gardening injuries.
      • Wounds containing foreign bodies.
      • Compound fractures.
      • Wounds or burns with systemic sepsis.
      • Certain animal bites and scratches. Smaller bites from domestic pets are generally puncture injuries. Animal saliva should not contain tetanus spores unless the animal has been rooting in soil or lives in an agricultural setting.
    • High-risk tetanus-prone wounds include any of the above with one or more of the following:
      • Heavy contamination with material likely to contain C. tetani spores, for example, soil or manure.
      • Wounds or burns that show extensive devitalized tissue.
      • Wounds or burns that require surgical intervention that is delayed for more than 6 hours are high risk, even if the contamination was not initially heavy.
    • Clinical judgement and individual risk assessment are required when considering the risk of infection. For example, a wound from discarded needle found in a park may be a tetanus-prone injury, but a needle stick injury in a medical environment is not.
  • Tetanus (local and generalized) is a notifiable disease.
    • Doctors have a statutory duty to notify the ‘proper officer’ at their local council or local health protection team (HPT) of suspected cases.
    • Further information is available form the GOV.UK website (www.gov.uk).

[PHE, 2019; PHE, 2022]

Basis for recommendation

These recommendations are based on the Public Health England (PHE) publication Immunisation against infectious disease (The Green Book) Chapter 30: Tetanus [PHE, 2022].

  • According to the Green Book:
    • People who have received an adequate priming course of tetanus vaccine (defined as at least 3 doses) would be expected to retain antibody levels above the protective threshold for between 5–10 years (depending on the age at which they received their last dose). These people would be expected to have adequate protection following a tetanus-prone injury and will therefore not require any immediate treatment. Further doses of vaccine may be required to complete the recommended schedule for future immunity.
    • People who have received an adequate priming course but are more than 5–10 years since the last dose (depending on the age of the final dose) would be expected to make a rapid response to a booster dose of vaccine and so all people in this group are recommended a booster dose of vaccine for immediate protection. This is likely to be sufficient except in situations of heavy contamination; therefore, only people who have sustained a high-risk injury require human tetanus immunoglobulin (HTIG) in addition to a reinforcing dose of vaccine. Further doses of vaccine may be required to complete the recommended schedule for future immunity.
    • For people who have not received an adequate priming course, any tetanus prone injury should receive both HTIG and a reinforcing dose of vaccine. This should include people with an uncertain immunization status and /or those born before routine immunization in 1961. Further doses of vaccine may be required to complete the recommended schedule for future immunity.

What information and advice should I give a person with a laceration?

  • Advise the person to:
    • Seek medical attention if they develop signs or symptoms of infection, including increasing pain, redness, or swelling spreading from the laceration; fever; or general malaise.
    • Take simple analgesia, such as paracetamol or ibuprofen, if the wound is painful or likely to become painful. 
    • Keep the wound clean and dry.
      • Waterproof dressings, such as vapour-permeable dressings, allow light wetting (as from showering) without the dressing separating or the wound becoming wet.
      • Non-waterproof dressings must be protected from wetting at all times.
  • After a wound has been closed, give advice on wound closure removal.

Basis for recommendation

These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Hollander, 1999; Wilson et al, 2000] and on what CKS considers to be good clinical practice.

Supporting evidence

The recommendations in this CKS topic are largely based on trial evidence [Hollander et al, 2001; Farion, 2002; Zempsky, 2004; Waseem, 2012; Eliya-Masam, 2013; Quinn, 2014; Tayeb, 2017; Heinemann-Celnikier, 2019; Rabbany, 2019; Fernandez, 2022] expert opinion in review articles [Hollander, 1999; Wilson et al, 2000; Cole, 2003; Cals, 2012; Worster, 2015; Forsch, 2017,; Turner, 2019a; Ratner, 2020; deLemos, 2022; DynaMed, 2022], and textbooks [Azmat, 2022; Newman, 2022].

The recommendations on tetanus prophylaxis are based on the Public Health England (PHE) publication Immunisation against infectious disease (The Green Book) Chapter 30: Tetanus [PHE, 2022]. 

The rationale for each recommendation is discussed in the relevant basis for recommendation section.

How this topic was developed

This section briefly describes the processes used in developing and updating this topic. Further details on the full process can be found in the About Us section and on the Clarity Informatics website.

Search strategy

A literature search was conducted for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials on primary care management of lacerations.

Search dates

June 2017 - November 2022

Key search terms

Various combinations of searches were carried out. The terms listed below are the core search terms that were used for Medline.

  • exp Lacerations/, laceration$.tw.

Sources of guidelines

Sources of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

  • The Cochrane Library:
    • Systematic reviews
    • Protocols
    • Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
  • Medline (with systematic review filter)
  • EMBASE (with systematic review filter)

Sources of health technology assessments and economic appraisals

Sources of randomized controlled trials

  • The Cochrane Library:
    • Central Register of Controlled Trials
  • Medline (with randomized controlled trial filter)
  • EMBASE (with randomized controlled trial filter)

Sources of evidence based reviews and evidence summaries

Sources of national policy

Patient experiences

Sources of medicines information

The following sources are used by CKS pharmacists and are not necessarily searched by CKS information specialists for all topics. Some of these resources are not freely available and require subscriptions to access content.

Stakeholder engagement

Our policy

The external review process is an essential part of CKS topic development. Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders provides quality assurance of the topic in terms of:

  • Clinical accuracy.
  • Consistency with other providers of clinical knowledge for primary care.
  • Accuracy of implementation of national guidance (in particular NICE guidelines).
  • Usability.

Principles of the consultation process

  • The process is inclusive and any individual may participate.
  • To participate, an individual must declare whether they have any competing interests or not. If they do not declare whether or not they have competing interests, their comments will not be considered.
  • Comments received after the deadline will be considered, but they may not be acted upon before the clinical topic is issued onto the website.
  • Comments are accepted in any format that is convenient to the reviewer, although an electronic format is encouraged.
  • External reviewers are not paid for commenting on the draft topics.
  • Discussion with an individual or an organization about the CKS response to their comments is only undertaken in exceptional circumstances (at the discretion of the Clinical Editor or Editorial Steering Group).
  • All reviewers are thanked and offered a letter acknowledging their contribution for the purposes of appraisal/revalidation.
  • All reviewers are invited to be acknowledged on the website. All reviewers are given the opportunity to feedback about the external review process, enabling improvements to be made where appropriate.

Stakeholders

  • Key stakeholders identified by the CKS team are invited to comment on draft CKS topics. Individuals and organizations can also register an interest to feedback on a specific topic, or topics in a particular clinical area, through the Getting involved section of the Clarity Informatics website.
  • Stakeholders identified from the following groups are invited to review draft topics:
    • Experts in the topic area.
    • Professional organizations and societies (for example, Royal Colleges).
    • Patient organizations, Clarity has established close links with groups such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society specifically for their input into new topic development, review of current topic content and advice on relevant areas of expert knowledge.
    • Guideline development groups where the topic is an implementation of a guideline.
    • The British National Formulary team.
    • The editorial team that develop MeReC Publications.
  • Reviewers are provided with clear instructions about what to review, what comments are particularly helpful, how to submit comments, and declaring interests.

Patient engagement

Clarity Informatics has enlisted the support and involvement of patients and lay persons at all stages in the process of creating the content which include:

  • Topic selection
  • Scoping of topic
  • Selection of clinical scenarios
  • First draft internal review
  • Second draft internal review
  • External review
  • Final draft and pre-publication

Our lay and patient involvement includes membership on the editorial steering group, contacting expert patient groups, organizations and individuals.

Evidence exclusion criteria

Our policy

Scoping a literature search, and reviewing the evidence for CKS is a methodical and systematic process that is carried out by the lead clinical author for each topic. Relevant evidence is gathered in order that the clinical author can make fully informed decisions and recommendations. It is important to note that some evidence may be excluded for a variety of reasons. These reasons may be applied across all CKS topics or may be specific to a given topic.

Studies identified during literature searches are reviewed to identify the most appropriate information to author a CKS topic, ensuring any recommendations are based on the best evidence. We use the principles of the GRADE and PICOT approaches to assess the quality of published research. We use the principles of AGREE II to assess the quality of published guidelines.

Standard exclusions for scoping literature:

  • Animal studies
  • Original research is not written in English

Possible exclusions for reviewed literature:

  • Sample size too small or study underpowered
  • Bias evident or promotional literature
  • Population not relevant
  • Intervention/treatment not relevant
  • Outcomes not relevant
  • Outcomes have no clear evidence of clinical effectiveness
  • Setting not relevant
  • Not relevant to UK
  • Incorrect study type
  • Review article
  • Duplicate reference

Organizational, behavioural and financial barriers

Our policy

The CKS literature searches take into consideration the following concepts, which are discussed at the initial scoping of the topic.

  • Feasibility
    • Studies are selected depending on whether the intervention under investigation is available in the NHS and can be practically and safely undertaken in primary care.
  • Organizational and Financial Impact Analysis
  • Studies are selected and evaluated on whether the intervention under investigations may have an impact on local clinical service provision or national impact on cost for the NHS. The principles of clinical budget impact analysis are adhered to, evaluated and recorded by the author. The following factors are considered when making this assessment and analysis.
    • Eligible population
    • Current interventions
    • Likely uptake of new intervention or recommendation
    • Cost of the current or new intervention mix
    • Impact on other costs
    • Condition-related costs
    • In-direct costs and service impacts
    • Time dependencies
  • Cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis studies are identified where available. 

We also evaluate and include evidence from NICE accredited sources which provide economic evaluations of recommendations, such as NICE guidelines. When a recommended action may not be possible because of resource constraints, this is explicitly indicated to healthcare professionals by the wording of the CKS recommendation.

Declarations of interest

Our policy

Clarity Informatics requests that all those involved in the writing and reviewing of topics, and those involved in the external review process to declare any competing interests. Signed copies are securely held by Clarity Informatics and are available on request with the permission of the individual. A copy of the declaration of interest form which participants are asked to complete annually is also available on request. A brief outline of the declarations of interest policy is described here and full details of the policy is available on the Clarity Informatics website. Declarations of interests of the authors are not routinely published, however competing interests of all those involved in the topic update or development are listed below. Competing interests include:

  • Personal financial interests
  • Personal family interest
  • Personal non-financial interest
  • Non-personal financial gain or benefit

Although particular attention is given to interests that could result in financial gains or losses for the individual, competing interests may also arise from academic competition or for political, personal, religious, and reputational reasons. An individual is not obliged to seek out knowledge of work done for, or on behalf of, the healthcare industry within the departments for which they are responsible if they would not normally expect to be informed.

Who should declare competing interests?

Any individual (or organization) involved in developing, reviewing, or commenting on clinical content, particularly the recommendations should declare competing interests. This includes the authoring team members, expert advisers, external reviewers of draft topics, individuals providing feedback on published topics, and Editorial Steering Group members. Declarations of interest are completed annually for authoring team and editorial steering group members, and are completed at the start of the topic update and development process for external stakeholders.

Competing interests declared for this topic:

None.

References

  • Azmat, C.E. and Council, M. (2022) Wound closure techniques. June 27 edn. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
  • BNF (2022) British National Formulary. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). https://bnf.nice.org.uk
  • Cals, J.W. and de Bont, E.G. (2012) Minor incised traumatic laceration. British Medical Journal 345(e6824). [Abstract]
  • Cole, E. (2003) Wound management in the A&E department. Nursing Standard 17(46), 45-52. [Abstract]
  • deLemos, D.M. (2022) Skin laceration repair with sutures. Uptodate. http://www.uptodate.com [Free Full-text]
  • DynaMed (2022) Laceration management. DynaMed. http://www.dynamed.com
  • Eliya-Masamba, M.C. and Banda, G.W. (2013) Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury (Cochrane Review/Cochrane Intervention Protocol). Issue 10. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.cochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
  • Farion, K.J., Russell, K.F., Osmond, M.H., et al. (2002) Tissue adhesives for traumatic lacerations in children and adults (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
  • Fernandez,R. and Griffiths,R. (2012) Water for wound cleansing (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. www.thecochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
  • Fernandez, R., Green, H. L., Griffiths, R. Atkinson, R.A. and Ellwood, L.J. (2022) Water for wound cleansing (Cochrane Review/Cochrane Intervention Protocol). Issue 9. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.cochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
  • Forsch, R.T., Little, S.H. and Williams, C. (2017) Laceration Repair: A Practical Approach. American Family Physician 95(10), 628-636. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
  • García-Gubern, C.F., Colon-Rolon, L. and Bond, M.C. (2010) Essential concepts of wound management. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 28(4), 951-967. [Abstract]
  • Hochner-Celnikier, D. (2019) Heinemann, 2019, Timing of staples and dressing removal after cesarean delivery (the SCARR study). International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 144(3), 283-289. [Abstract]
  • Hollander, J.E., Singer, A.J., Valentine, S.M. and Shofer, F.S. (2001) Risk factors for infection in patients with traumatic lacerations. Academic Emergency Medicine 8(7), 716-720. [Abstract]
  • Hollander, J.E. and Singer, A.J. (1999) Laceration management. Annals of Emergency Medicine 34(3), 356-367. [Abstract]
  • Mankowitz S.L. (2017) Laceration Management. The Journal of Emergency Medicine 53(3), 369-382. [Abstract]
  • Newman, R.K. and Mahdy, H. (2022) Laceration. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
  • NHS (2022) Health A to Z: How long will my stitches (sutures) take to dissolve? National Health Service. http://www.nhs.uk [Free Full-text]
  • NICE (2017) Child maltreatment: when to suspect maltreatment in under 18s. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk [Free Full-text]
  • PHE (2019) Tetanus: Guidance on the management of suspected tetanus cases and on the assessment and management of tetanus-prone wounds. Public Health England. http://www.gov.uk [Free Full-text]
  • PHE (2022) Immunisation against infectious disease (The Green Book) Chapter 30: Tetanus. Public Health England. http://www.gov.uk [Free Full-text]
  • Quinn, J.V.,  Polevoi, S.K.,  Kohn, M.A. (2014) Traumatic lacerations: what are the risks for infection and has the ‘golden period’ of laceration care disappeared? Emergency Medicine Journal 31(2), 96. [Abstract]
  • Rabbany, J., Kim, T., Koh, S. Zaghiyan, K. and Fleshner, P. (2019) Cosmesis in Patients after Multiport Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Does the Extraction Incision Matter? The American Surgeon 85(2), 162-166. [Abstract]
  • Ratner, D (2020) Suturing Techniques Periprocedural Care. Medscape. http://www.medscape.com [Free Full-text]
  • RCH (2022) Lacerations. Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne. http://www.rch.org.au [Free Full-text]
  • Tayeb, B.O., Eidelman, A., Eidelman, C.L. McNicol, E.D. and Carr, D.B. (2017) Topical anaesthetics for pain control during repair of dermal laceration (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
  • Turner, R.C. and Tran, V. (2019a) Acute lacerations: Assessment and non-surgical management. Australian Journal of General Practice 48(9), 585-588. [Free Full-text]
  • Turner R.C. (2019b) Surgical management of acute lacerations. Australian Journal of General Practice 48(9), 600-603. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
  • Waseem, M., Lakdawala, V., Patel, R. Kapoor, R., et al. (2012) Is there a relationship between wound infections and laceration closure times? International Journal of Emergency Medicine 5(1), 32. [Abstract]
  • Wilson, J.L., Kocurek, K. and Doty, B.J. (2000) A systematic approach to laceration repair: tricks to ensure the desired cosmetic result. Postgraduate Medicine 107(4), 77-88. [Abstract]
  • Worster, B., Zawora, M.Q. and Hsieh, C. (2015) Common questions about wound care. American Family Physician 91(2), 86-92. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
  • Zempsky, W.T., Parrotti, D., Grem, C. and Nichols, J. (2004) Randomized controlled comparison of cosmetic outcomes of simple facial lacerations closed with Steri Strip Skin Closures or Dermabond tissue adhesive. Pediatric Emergency Care 20(8), 519-524. [Abstract]
Change privacy settings