ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Open abdomen versus primary closure in the management of severe abdominal sepsis: What is the right way? Results of the last 5 years of a reference center.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emergency colorectal cancer in old and very elderly patients: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWSES guidelines allow open abdomen (OA) for critically ill patients due to secondary peritonitis in the case of inadequate source control, but this option results quite vague and with a low grade of evidence (Grade 2 C). Moreover, the emerging increasing in literature of complications, makes the use of OA in secondary peritonitis more debated. The aim of our study is to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing OA versus primary closure (PC) in secondary peritonitis.
methodsWe collected data from Tertiary Trauma Center from 2019 to 2024. The study included patients who underwent urgent laparotomy for severe secondary peritonitis, divided into two groups based on the strategy chosen in the index laparotomy: PC or OA. We retrospectively analyzed the data, considering as primary outcome post-operative mortality, while as secondary outcomes short terms complications and LOS.
results283 patients fit the research for the diagnosis of peritonitis but only 176 were included as with a WSES-SSS > = 7. 128 patients (72,7%) were in the PC group, while 48 (27,3%) were managed with an OA strategy. There were no statistical differences in terms of mortality (p = 0.371), between the two groups. Complications were higher in the OA group (p = 0.001). From the logistic regression only MPI resulted an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.016; OR 1.080).
conclusionThe study shows that OA in severe secondary peritonitis does not improve mortality and is associated with higher short-term complications and incisional hernias. However, RCT are necessary to better investigate the role of OA in the management of abdominal sepsis.
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.