Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40399929›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2025

Vacuum-assisted closure or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand in patients with secondary peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pooya Rajabaleyan, Pedja Cuk, Sören Möller, Niels Qvist, Mark Bremholm Ellebæk

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pooya RajabaleyanResearch Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Pooya.Rajabaleyan@skane.se.
Pedja CukResearch Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Sören MöllerOpen Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Niels QvistResearch Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Mark Bremholm EllebækResearch Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF19OC0058637
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecondary peritonitis is a serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality. Its management requires emergency laparotomy for source control. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) and primary abdominal closure (PAC) are the main strategies for managing the laparostomy after source control. Despite the increasing use of VAC, concerns persist regarding its complications and long-term outcomes compared with PAC.

methodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, MINORS and GRADE framework assessed study quality and evidence certainty. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022304724). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 2004 to August 2024 identified studies reporting postoperative outcomes following VAC or PAC after laparotomy for secondary peritonitis. The included studies had to report at least two key outcomes: mortality, postoperative complications, incisional hernia, secondary fascial closure, and hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay.

resultsThirty-three studies including 4,520 patients were analyzed. Mortality was 31.1% in VAC and 22.2% in PAC (p = 0.327). Postoperative complications were higher with VAC (71.0% vs. 39.3%, p = 0.001). Incisional hernia rates were similar (21.3% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.958). Secondary fascial closure rate was significantly lower with VAC (58.1% vs. 85.9%, p < 0.001). VAC patients had longer ICU stays (21.1 vs. 9.7 days, p = 0.04), while hospital stay did not differ. Most studies had a high risk of bias, and GRADE assessment showed low to very low evidence certainty.

conclusionVAC therapy was associated with more postoperative complications, a lower fascial closure rate, and a longer ICU length of stay compared with PAC. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ between the approaches. However, most of studies included were subject to serious risk of bias and a low level of certainty in evidence.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesLaparotomyNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyPeritonitisReoperationHumansPostoperative ComplicationsOpen abdomenSecondary peritonitisVacuum-assisted abdominal closure

Identifiers

PMID40399929
PMCPMC12096719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.