ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
The evaluation of risk factors in fascia dehiscence after abdominal surgeries.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barbed versus conventional sutures and the risk of abdominal wall dehiscence after laparotomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Risk Factors and Predictive Accuracy of the Rotterdam Risk Index for Wound Dehiscence Following Abdominal Surgery.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the advances in surgical techniques and risk control practices in recent years, open wounds following abdominal laparotomy still have a high prevalence. The purpose of this study is to investigate the risk factors of fascia dehiscence (FD) in abdominal surgery patients. Methods: In this observational study, a total of 60 emergency and elective laparotomy patients were enrolled. For all patients, with (treatment) or without (control) wound dehiscence, a checklist was used to extract data from medical records regarding underlying diseases, suturing method, emergency or elective surgical procedure, duration of surgery less than 180 min, intraoperative bleeding, wound closure method, hernia repair, age, sex, smoking history, comorbidities, type of surgery, colostomy placement, wound complications, re-operation, mortality, wound complications including wound infection, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, and anastomotic leak, and preoperative readiness assessments such as laboratory tests including C-reactive protein (CRP), Albumin (Alb), etc., were completed, and then comparisons were made. Results: Patients were examined in two groups: 14 patients (70%) in wound dehiscence with age 40-60 and 6 patients (30%) in non-wound dehiscence with age 60-75. Eight patients (40%) underwent elective surgery, and 12 patients (60%) underwent emergency surgery ( Conclusion: Based on this study, FD is more common in patients treated in the emergency room than in elective procedures. Mortality occurred more in patients with FD, and there is a significant relationship between FD with albumin less than 3 and drain placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.