BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study aimed to determine the infection rate of simple hand laceration(SHL), and to compare infection rates between patients who were prescribed antibiotics and those who were not.METHODS: The study was performed at two urban hospitals enrolling 125 emergency department(ED) patients with SHL. Exclusion criteria included patients with lacerations for more than 12 hours, immunocompromized patients, patients given antibiotics, and patients with gross contamination, bites or crush injuries. Wound infection was defined as clinical infection at a follow-up visit(10–14 days) or wound was treated with antibiotics. Patient satisfaction was also measured using a visual analogue scale 1–10, asking the patients about wound appearance. Demographic data and wound characteristics were compared between the infected and non-infected wounds. The infection rates were also compared between patients who received prophylactic antibiotics and those who did not. The results were presented with medians and quartiles or percentages with 95% confidence intervals(CI).RESULTS: In the 125 patients with SHL [median age: 28(18, 43); range: 1–102 years old; 36% female], 44(35%, 95% CI: 27%–44%) were given antibiotics in the ED. Wound infection was reported in 6 patients(4.8%, 95% CI: 2%–10%). Age, gender, history of diabetes and wound closure were not associated with wound infection(P>0.05). The infection rate was not significantly different between patients with or without antibiotic prophylaxis [7%(3/44), 95% CI: 2%–10% vs. 4%(3/81), 95% CI: 1%–11%, P=0.66]. Patient’s satisfaction with appearance ofinfected and non-infected wounds were significantly different [7.5(6, 8) vs. 9(8, 10), P=0.01].CONCLUSION: Approximately 5% of simple hand lacerations become infected. Age, gender, diabetes, prophylactic antibiotics and closure technique do not affect the risk ofinfection. BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study aimed to determine the infection rate of simple hand laceration (SHL), and to compare the infection rates between patients who were prescribed antibiotics and those who were not. METHHODS: The study was performed at two urban hospitals enrolling 125 emergency department (ED) patients with SHL. Exclusion criteria included patients with lacerations for more than 12 hours, immunocompromized patients, patients given antibiotics, and patients with gross contamination, bites or crush injuries. Wound infection was defined as clinical infection at a follow-up visit (10-14 days) or wound was treated with antibiotics. Patient characteristics was also measured using a visual analogue scale 1-10, asking the patients about wound appearance. Demographic data and wound characteristics were more between the infected and non-infected wounds The infection rates were also compared between patients who received prophylactic antibiotics and those who did not. T he results were presented with medians and quartiles or percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI) .RESULTS: In the 125 patients with SHL [median age: 28 (18, 43); range: 1-102 years old; 36% , 44 (35%, 95% CI: 27% -44%) were given antibiotics in the ED. Wound infection was reported in 6 patients (4.8%, 95% CI: 2% -10%). Age, gender, history of diabetes and wound closure were not associated with wound infection (P> 0.05). The infection rate was not significantly different between patients with or without antibiotic prophylaxis [7% (3/44), 95% CI: 2% -10% vs 95% CI: 1% -11%, P = 0.66]. Patient’s satisfaction with appearance of non-infected and non-infected wounds were significantly different [7.5 (6,8) vs. 9 (8, Age, gender, diabetes, prophylactic antibiotics and closure technique do not affect the risk of infection.