SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Contemporary management of the open abdomen: standards, challenges, and future directions.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. 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.
- Access, equity, and innovation in the management of the open abdomen: the lack of proper treatment and the impact in low-income populations.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe open abdomen (OA) is a key strategy in damage control surgery (DCS) for severe intra-abdominal pathology but is associated with considerable morbidity, including enteroatmospheric fistula (EAF) and failure of fascial closure. This narrative review summarizes current evidence on indications, temporary abdominal closure (TAC), timing of closure, and supportive care.
methodsA structured PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science search was performed up to January 2025 in accordance with PRISMA principles. Relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical guidelines, registry analyses, and prospective studies published in English were included. Given the narrative design, no meta-analysis was conducted.
resultsNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) combined with dynamic fascial traction represents a preferred TAC strategy, achieving primary closure rates up to 80-90% in selected patients. Early fascial closure (within 5-7 days) is associated with fewer complications, particularly EAF. Early enteral nutrition (24-48 h), when feasible, may support fascial approximation. However, available evidence is largely observational and heterogeneous, with substantial inter-institutional variability.
conclusionOptimal OA management requires appropriate indication, standardized TAC strategies, and a proactive approach to early closure. When primary closure is not feasible, a planned ventral hernia remains a safe alternative. High-quality prospective studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
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.