Open Abdomen with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy versus Primary Fascial Closure in Abdominal Septic Shock: A Propensity-Weighted Cohort Study
In a propensity-weighted cohort study of patients with abdominal septic shock, initial open-abdomen management with negative-pressure wound therapy showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality compared to primary fascial closure, supporting a selective rather than routine approach to open-abdomen use.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When the body is overwhelmed by a severe infection inside the belly, the situation is often a race against time. Surgeons must operate quickly to stop the source of the infection, such as a burst intestine or a gangrenous organ. Once the dangerous tissue is removed or repaired, a critical decision remains: how to close the body back up. In a standard procedure, the surgeon pulls the layers of muscle and skin together and stitches them shut. However, in cases where the patient is extremely unstable, the intestines are swollen, or the surgeon needs to look inside again later, closing the belly immediately can be dangerous. In these moments, the medical team may choose to leave the abdomen open, covering the exposed organs with a special vacuum-sealed dressing that gently sucks out fluid and keeps the area clean. This approach, known as an open abdomen with negative-pressure wound therapy, is a well-known tool in emergency surgery, but it is not clear if it actually helps patients survive better than closing the belly right away. The question is difficult to answer because doctors usually only leave the belly open for the sickest patients, making it hard to tell if the method itself saves lives or if the patients simply had a harder road to begin with.
Researchers at the University of Padova in Italy set out to untangle this question by looking back at the records of 128 adults who underwent urgent surgery for septic shock between May 2021 and April 2026. Septic shock is a life-threatening condition where the body's response to infection causes a dangerous drop in blood pressure and organ failure. The team compared two groups of patients: those whose surgeons decided to leave the abdomen open and apply the vacuum dressing, and those whose surgeons closed the belly wall immediately after the source of infection was controlled. Because the choice to leave the belly open was made by doctors based on how sick the patient looked, the researchers used a sophisticated statistical method to balance the two groups. This technique allowed them to compare patients who were similar in their initial severity, effectively simulating a fair comparison between the two strategies.
The study found that leaving the abdomen open with the vacuum dressing did not result in a detectable difference in survival rates compared to closing the belly immediately. After adjusting for the differences in patient health, about 25 percent of the patients in the open-abdomen group died within 30 days, a figure nearly identical to the 24 percent who died in the group that had their bellies closed right away. The researchers could not rule out that the open-abdomen method might offer a small benefit or a small harm, but the data did not show a clear advantage for either approach regarding the most important outcome: staying alive. The study explicitly argues against the idea that surgeons should routinely leave the abdomen open for all patients with severe abdominal infections in the hope of improving survival rates. Instead, the evidence suggests that this aggressive strategy should remain a selective tool, reserved for specific situations where the immediate closure of the belly is unsafe.
While the survival rates were similar, the path to recovery looked quite different for the two groups. Patients who had their bellies left open required more subsequent operations to check on the inside of the abdomen and to eventually close the wound. They also spent more time on mechanical ventilators to help them breathe and remained in the hospital for longer periods. The data showed that the open-abdomen group needed roughly three extra days of hospitalization and nearly three extra days of breathing support compared to those who had their bellies closed immediately. These findings suggest that while the vacuum dressing is effective at managing the open wound, the strategy of leaving the belly open carries a heavier burden of medical care and recovery time. The decision to use this method was most strongly linked to specific signs of instability during surgery, such as the need for multiple drugs to support blood pressure or the type of procedure being performed, rather than a general rule for all severe infections.
Ultimately, the study provides a clear picture for medical teams facing these high-stakes decisions. The vacuum-assisted open abdomen is a valuable technique for managing the most unstable patients, but it is not a magic bullet that improves survival on its own. The researchers conclude that the choice to leave the belly open should be driven by the immediate needs of the surgery, such as the condition of the intestines or the need for a second look, rather than an expectation that it will lower the death rate. For patients with abdominal septic shock, the best approach appears to be a careful, individualized judgment call, using the open-abdomen strategy only when the alternative of closing the belly immediately poses a greater risk.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.