ArticleCureus2025
Risk Factors and Predictive Accuracy of the Rotterdam Risk Index for Wound Dehiscence Following Abdominal Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Use of Rotterdam Risk Index in the Assessment of Risk Factors in Abdominal Wound Dehiscence.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Wound dehiscence (WD) is a major postoperative complication following abdominal surgeries, particularly exploratory laparotomy. Identifying preoperative risk factors and using predictive tools, such as the Rotterdam Risk Index (RRI), are crucial for early intervention and improving patient outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with WD and assess the predictive accuracy of the RRI in a cohort of patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. Methods This retrospective observational study included 151 patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy at a tertiary care hospital. Demographic details, comorbidities, surgical factors, and postoperative complications were recorded. The RRI was calculated preoperatively for each patient. WD was diagnosed based on clinical signs and confirmed through physical examination. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software to determine the associations between various risk factors and the occurrence of WD. Results The study identified several factors significantly associated with WD, including male gender, emergency surgery, low serum albumin levels (<3.5 g/dL), anemia (hemoglobin <10 g/dL), and wound contamination. Male patients had a higher risk of WD, with odds of 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.3, p = 0.021). Emergency surgery was associated with a higher incidence of WD (odds ratio (OR): 4.1, 95% CI: 1.5-10.4, p = 0.017). The RRI showed high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (90.2%) for predicting WD preoperatively, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.986. Postoperatively, 22 patients with WD were treated with resuturing, while two required reoperation due to anastomotic leaks. Conclusion The RRI demonstrated excellent predictive accuracy for identifying patients at high risk of WD before surgery. Early identification of risk factors, such as low serum albumin, anemia, and emergency surgeries, enables personalized perioperative management strategies, including nutritional optimization and careful intraoperative monitoring, which can significantly reduce the risk of WD. These findings emphasize the clinical utility of the RRI in guiding surgical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.
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.