ArticleBJS open2025
Mortality in patients with secondary peritonitis treated by primary closure or vacuum-assisted closure: nationwide register-based cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecondary peritonitis caused by gastrointestinal perforation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Effective management includes surgical source control, antibiotic therapy, and intensive resuscitation. The choice between primary abdominal closure (PAC) and vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) in the management of secondary peritonitis remains a subject of debate.
methodsThis Danish nationwide register-based cohort study included patients undergoing emergency surgery for secondary peritonitis from perforation of the small intestine, colon, or rectum between 2007 and 2021 who were treated with either PAC or VAC. Data were extracted from national registries, including the Danish Register of Cause of Death and the Danish National Patient Registry. The primary outcome was overall all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year.
resultsIn all, 13 898 patients were included (1017 in the VAC group, 12 881 in the PAC group). VAC-treated patients had significantly higher Charlson Co-morbidity Index scores and were slightly younger. In the subgroup with available laboratory data, VAC-treated patients also presented with more severe biochemical derangements, including elevated C-reactive protein, leukocytes, bilirubin, and lactate, as well as lower haemoglobin, suggesting a higher baseline severity of illness. The overall risk-stratified mortality rate (RSMR) was 49.1% for VAC and 52.0% for PAC (P = 0.222). The 30-day mortality rate was 16.9% in both the VAC and PAC groups, with RSMR of 17.4% and 18.3%, respectively (P = 0.656). At 90 days, mortality was 24.3% and 22.5% in the VAC and PAC groups, respectively, with a corresponding RSMR of 23.2% and 24.2% (P = 0.437). One year after surgery, the mortality rate was 31.3% for VAC and 29.5% for PAC, with a corresponding RSMR of 30.3% and 31.6% (P = 0.346).
conclusionThis nationwide cohort study revealed no significant differences in mortality between PAC and VAC in patients with secondary peritonitis at any of the designated time points. Demographic and laboratory data suggest that VAC-treated patients had a higher baseline severity of illness.
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.