MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415659977 · doi:10.1186/s13017-025-00657-9

Timing of planned reoperation after damage control surgery in patients with trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415659977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dongmin Seo, Hye Young Woo, Inhae Heo, Kyoungwon Jung, Hohyung Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Emergency Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAjou University
KeywordsDamage controlDamage control surgeryMEDLINEControl (management)Patient safety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Damage control surgery (DCS) is the standard approach for managing severely injured patients with trauma who present with extreme physiological derangements. The optimal timing for planned reoperation after the initial DCS remains contentious. Although traditional guidelines recommend reoperation within 24–48 h, emerging evidence suggests this interval may not be appropriate for all patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of early versus delayed planned reoperations on the clinical outcomes in patients with trauma following DCS. Methods This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251049990). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 28 July 2025. Eligible studies compared early (≤ 48 h) with delayed (> 48 h) planned reoperation after DCS in adult patients with trauma. The primary outcome was re-bleeding; secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and infection rates. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Results Seven retrospective cohort studies involving 965 patients met the inclusion criteria. No prospective or randomised controlled trials were identified. Early planned reoperation was associated with significantly higher re-bleeding rates (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.21–7.51; P = 0.02), indicating three-fold higher odds of re-bleeding with early intervention compared to delayed reoperation. No significant differences were observed in mortality (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.51–1.23; P = 0.29; I 2 = 0%) or infection rates (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.54–2.05; P = 0.89; I 2 = 65%). Conclusions Delayed planned reoperation beyond 48 h after DCS significantly reduces the risk of re-bleeding, without increasing mortality or infection rates. These findings support an individualised approach to reoperation timing guided by patient physiology, rather than rigid adherence to conventional 24- to 48-h protocols.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Emergency SurgerySame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207