BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Editorial Open Access
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. Sep 5, 2026; 17(3): 120768
Published online Sep 5, 2026. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.120768
Serial Bogota bag tightening: A pragmatic advance in open abdomen management for resource-limited settings
Gemechu Dereje Feyissa, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rift Valley University, Adama 1715, Oromīa, Ethiopia
ORCID number: Gemechu Dereje Feyissa (0009-0009-9248-4084).
Author contributions: Feyissa GD conceptualized the editorial, drafted and revised the manuscript, and approved the final version.
AI contribution statement: I used AI based language polishing and grammar checking tools (e.g., Grammarly) to assist in improving the clarity, fluency, and grammar of the manuscript. No AI tool was used for statistical or data analysis, interpretation of results, or intellectual content generation. All figures and tables were generated by the authors using standard statistical and graphic software (e.g., R, GraphPad Prism, Microsoft Excel); no image was produced by AI tools.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Corresponding author: Gemechu Dereje Feyissa, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rift Valley University, Hangatu District, Dabe Sub-City, Adama 1715, Oromīa, Ethiopia. gemechudereje80@gmail.com
Received: March 9, 2026
Revised: March 19, 2026
Accepted: May 29, 2026
Published online: September 5, 2026
Processing time: 178 Days and 7.2 Hours

Abstract

Open abdomen management poses unique challenges in resource-limited settings, where costly dynamic fascial traction techniques remain inaccessible. Balhara et al's prospective randomized trial published on the World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther introduces serial Bogota bag tightening, a bedside, negligible-cost method using urine bags and sutures, as an effective dynamic fascial traction alternative, achieving skin-to-skin distance ≤ 5 cm in 9.94 days vs 13 days in controls (P = 0.0003) and shortening hospital stays without added morbidity. This editorial appraises the study’s strengths, contextualizes it against negative pressure wound therapy/mesh systems, and advocates its scalability for low- and middle-income countries, urging multicenter validation of long-term fascial closure.

Key Words: Open abdomen; Dynamic fascial traction; Bogota bag; Serial tightening; Temporary abdominal closure; Emergency laparotomy; Abdominal sepsis; Resource-limited settings

Core Tip: Balhara et al pioneer randomized, low-cost dynamic fascial traction via serial Bogota bag tightening, accelerating skin-to-skin closure (9.94 days vs 13 days) and hospital stays in septic open abdomen, bedside feasible, universally accessible, and ideal for low- and middle-income countries overburdened by sepsis, bridging the gap until advanced therapies proliferate.



This editorial refers to “Low-cost dynamic fascial traction using serial Bogota bag tightening in open abdomen management: A prospective randomized study” by Balhara K et al, 2026; https://dx.doi.org/10.4292/wjgpt.v17.i2.118848.


INTRODUCTION

This editorial provides a critical appraisal of Balhara et al’s prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT)[1] (n = 36) validating serial Bogota bag tightening as low-cost dynamic fascial traction (DFT) for open abdomen (OA) management in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It contextualizes study strengths/Limitations against negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)/vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) benchmarks, advocates World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS) tier 3 adoption pending multicenter validation, and addresses global surgery inequities. OA remains a cornerstone of damage control surgery in sepsis and trauma, yet temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques falter in LMICs where costly commercial systems like ABTheraTM or Fasciotens® remain inaccessible[1-5].

Balhara et al’s single-center RCT[1] (n = 36) demonstrated serial tightening of improvised urine bag flaps achieved skin-to-skin distance (SSD) ≤ 5 cm in 9.94 ± 1.88 days vs 13 ± 2.87 days with standard Bogota bags (P = 0.0003), shortening hospital stays (17 days vs 20 days, P = 0.0013) without increased morbidity. This bedside technique, requiring only polypropylene sutures and weekly nurse-led adjustments, offers a pragmatic solution for LMIC sepsis burdens [tuberculosis (TB) peritonitis, enteric perforations] where NPWT costs exceed 300 dollars per dressing and supply chains fail. Figures 1 and 2 show the serial Bogota bag technique, including stepwise tightening, flap suturing, and central traction, as well as the limitations in managing massive abdominal defects in resource-limited settings.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Serial Bogota bag tightening - step-wise application. SSD: Skin-to-skin distance.
Figure 2
Figure 2  Massive open abdomen post-necrosectomy - technique limits.
CLINICAL CONTEXT AND COMPARISONS

Serial Bogota bag tightening represents an innovative evolution from static TAC techniques, achieving SSD ≤ 5 cm, a validated surrogate for fascial approximation, in 9.94 days vs 13 days with standard Bogota bags[6-8]. While SSD ≤ 5 cm correlates strongly with definitive fascial closure rates (70%-80% in VAWCM trials)[9], it remains a proxy endpoint; Balhara et al’s 100% SSD achievement[1] (vs 0% in controls) demonstrates feasibility but requires long-term validation of actual closure and hernia prevention (Table 1)[6,9-18].

Table 1 Comparison of temporary abdominal closure techniques.
Technique
Cost
Bedside feasible
Time to SSD ≤ 5 cm
Fascial closure rate
Key limitations
Standard Bogota bag[10]Low (1-2 dollars)Yes13 days35%-45%No traction; domain loss
Serial bag tighteningNegligible (approximately 0.50 dollar)Yes9.94 daysSSD ≤ 5 cm (definitive pending)Surrogate endpoint
Towel clips[11]NegligibleYes14-21 days20%-30%Skin necrosis. Poor traction
Wittmann patch alternatives[12]Moderate (10-20 dollars)Partial10-15 days50%-60%Reusability issues, infection
Mosquito net mesh tractionVery low (approximately 1 dollar)Partial11-14 days60%-70%OR-dependent, availability
ABTheraTM NPWTHigh (300+ dollars/dressing)No10-14 days70%-80%Cost, OR-dependent
Fasciotens®[6,13]High (approximately three hundred thousand rupees)Partial7-9 days70%-80%Availability
NPWT + mesh (VAWCM)[9,14-17]HighNo10-14 days70%-80%ECF risk; OR-dependent
Perforated drains[18]LowYes9.1 daysNot reportedSmall series

Serial Bogota tightening demonstrates superior speed (9.94 days) and cost-effectiveness vs other low-cost improvised techniques while avoiding towel clip skin necrosis and mesh/operating room dependency, ideal for septic OA in resource-limited settings[18]. Key positioning: This expanded comparison establishes serial Bogota tightening as the optimal low-cost DFT solution: Faster than towel clips/mosquito net (9.94 days vs 11-21 days), cheaper than Wittmann alternatives (approximately 0.50 dollar vs 10-20 dollars), and fully bedside-feasible without skin necrosis risks.

SURROGATE ENDPOINT DISCUSSION
Surrogate endpoint caveat

SSD ≤ 5 cm strongly correlates with definitive fascial closure (70%-80% in VAWCM meta-analyses) but 20%-30% of SSD successes fail actual closure. Balhara et al’s 100% SSD achievement[1] (vs 0% controls) demonstrates feasibility only, definitive closure, hernia prevention, and quality-of-life remain unproven.

Critical limitations of surrogate reliance

SSD is not definitive closure. VAWCM trials show 20%-30% fail fascial closure despite SSD success[19]. Long-term unknowns: Hernia incidence (25%-66% historical OA rates), quality of life unassessed. Single-center: n = 36 limits generalizability beyond TB/enteric fever cohort. Validation hierarchy required: Phase II: SSD → fascial closure correlation (target > 70%); phase III: Multicenter RCTs with definitive closure as primary endpoint; phase IV: 5-year hernia/quality of life surveillance. This positions serial Bogota tightening as promising (level 2b) pending level 1b confirmation of translation from surrogate to clinical outcomes, essential before supplanting proven NPWT benchmarks.

Implications for LMIC practice

Serial Bogota tightening addresses global sepsis burdens mirroring Ethiopia (TB peritonitis, typhoid) and India (enteric fever perforations), where 70% of OA cases occur in resource-limited public hospitals. This frugal innovation transforms urine bags (approximately 0.50 dollar) into DFT, circumventing NPWT barriers (cost > 300 dollars/dressing, supply chain failures, OR dependency).

Bedside feasibility and implementation

Performed weekly at bedside by nurses or junior surgeons using readily available urine collection bags (approximately 0.50 dollar) and polypropylene sutures, it bypasses NPWT barriers including recurrent costs (300+ dollars per dressing), fragile supply chains, and operating theater access[20]. Shortened approximation time (9.94 days vs 13 days) and hospital stays (17 days vs 20 days) generate indirect savings of 300-600 dollars per case in public systems, leveraging fascia’s viscoelastic properties for progressive closure[21].

Training and reproducibility

Requires only basic suture skills acquirable in 1-2 supervised sessions, making it reproducible across healthcare systems, from urban referral centers to rural district hospitals lacking NPWT or Fasciotens®[22]. Validation in Balhara et al’s septic cohort[1] (n = 36) mirrors LMIC realities, though scale-up needs protocol standardization and competency checklists.

Challenges and mitigation

Potential hurdles include supply variability (mitigated by universal urine bag availability), patient discomfort during tightening (managed via analgesia), and applicability limits in massive defects with domain loss (e.g., post-necrosectomy, Figure 2).

LITERATURE ENGAGEMENT AND GLOBAL CONTEXTUALIZATION
Literature evolution of Bogota bag techniques

Static to dynamic progression: The Bogota bag, originally described by Borraez in 1984 as a sterile 3 L irrigation bag sutured to fascia, has evolved from passive visceral coverage to active fascial traction systems[23]. Early applications focused on abdominal compartment syndrome prevention, but serial tightening innovations mark a paradigm shift from static coverage (35%-45% fascial closure) to dynamic approximation (70%-80% potential)[10,14]. Balhara et al's prospective RCT[1] represents the first randomized validation of suture-mediated DFT using improvised materials, distinguishing it from prior case series and retrospective cohorts.

Precedents and gaps: Coccolini et al’s International Register of OA (IROA) analysis[24] (n = 570) demonstrated Bogota bags improved trauma outcomes vs skin-only closure (31.8% usage), but lacked dynamic traction. VAMMFT trials report superior closure rates (77.3%) but require costly NPWT systems unavailable in LMICs[14]. Pediatric silo adaptations and perforated drain modifications exist, yet no prior study randomized serial tightening against controls in septic cohorts[18,25].

Global burden and LMIC relevance

Epidemiological context: OA incidence parallels surgical pathology burdens[26]: India’s enteric fever/TB profile mirrors Ethiopia’s abdominal sepsis predominance (typhoid, TB peritonitis), while trauma drives 25%-30% of global damage control surgery[27]. World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS)/WSIS guidelines endorse OA for ACS/sepsis, but LMIC implementation lags due to NPWT costs (approximately three hundred thousand rupees) vs urine bags (< fifty rupees).

Resource-stratified recommendation: WSIS/WSACS guidelines support tiered TAC strategies by resource availability. Serial Bogota tightening (level 2b evidence from Balhara et al’s RCT[1]) is recommended for tier 3 LMICs, pending level 1b multicenter validation; high-resource tier 1 settings prioritize VAWCM/NPWT (Table 2).

Table 2 Temporary abdominal closure strategies by resource tier.
Setting
TAC strategy
Closure rate
Cost
Availability
High-incomeABTheraTM/VAWCM[9,14-17]70%-80%HighHigh
Middle-incomeFasciotens®/mesh[6,13]65%-75%ModerateLow
Low-incomeSerial Bogota[1]SSD ≤ 5 cm: 100%NegligibleUniversal
Global surgery perspective

Serial Bogota bag tightening exemplifies frugal innovation within World Health Organization (WHO) essential surgery frameworks, transforming urine bags (approximately 0.50 dollar) into DFT, bridging NPWT access gaps affecting 5 billion people lacking timely surgical care. This aligns with Global Surgery 2030 goals by: Retooling waste materials (universal urine bags → DFT system); task-shifting to nurses/junior surgeons (1-2 training sessions); eliminating operating room/supply chain dependency (bedside-weekly protocol). Health economics: 3-day hospital reduction = 300-600 dollars savings per case × 1M annual LMIC OA cases = 500 million dollars potential impact. WSIS 2024 tier 3 endorsement positions this as scalable precedent for pragmatic surgical adaptation across Africa (TB peritonitis), Asia (enteric fever), Latin America (trauma). IROA data confirm sepsis/trauma predominance across continents, positioning this technique as a “frugal innovation” per WHO essential surgery frameworks[24,28].

Comparative global validation needs

Multicenter imperative: Enhanced “multicenter imperative” now prioritizes comprehensive long-term endpoints critical for practice-changing level 1b evidence. Primary endpoints (definitive closure metrics): Ventral hernia incidence: 5-year surveillance (target < 20% vs 35%-66% historical OA rates). Delayed fascial closure rates: > 70% target (VAWCM benchmark). Quality of life: Short-Form 36, hernia-specific disability index (hernia-related quality-of-life survey). Abdominal wall reconstruction needs: Component separation, biologic mesh requirements. Secondary endpoints: Cost-effectiveness: 300-600 dollars hospital savings validation across LMIC tiers. Sepsis-specific efficacy: 30-day mortality, enterocutaneous fistula rates. Training reproducibility: District hospital success rates (> 90% competency). Global trial design: Phase III multicenter RCTs spanning LMIC etiologies (Africa: TB/perforations; Latin America: Trauma; Asia: Enteric fever) integrating with WSACS COOL trial framework for adequate power (n > 400). Composite primary outcome: Hernia-free closure at 1 year (Figure 3). This addresses single-center limitations (n = 36) while establishing serial Bogota tightening as scalable level 1b evidence for WSACS/WHO essential surgery guidelines[9,24,29].

Figure 3
Figure 3 Proposed multicenter trial schema (CONSORT flow). LMIC: Low- and middle-income country; RCT: Randomized controlled trial.
Policy integration and global surgery perspective

Serial Bogota bag tightening exemplifies frugal innovation within WHO essential surgery frameworks, adapting universally available urine bags (approximately 0.50 dollar) into DFT, bridging NPWT access gaps that affect 5 billion people lacking timely surgical care. Global burden alignment: Africa (Ethiopia): TB peritonitis, typhoid sepsis drive 70% OA cases. Asia (India): Enteric fever perforations mirror Balhara et al’s cohort[1]. Latin America: Trauma accounts for 25%-30% damage control surgery. WHO 2030 alignment: Addresses “essential surgery crisis” by: Retooling existing materials (urine bags → DFT system). Task-shifting to mid-level providers (nurses/junior surgeons). Bedside scalability eliminates operating room/supply chain dependency. Health economics: 3-day hospital reduction translates to 300-600 dollars savings per case × 1 million annual LMIC OA cases = 500 million dollars potential annual impact. WSIS 2024 resource stratification: Tier 1 (high-resource): VAWCM/NPWT; tier 2 (middle-resource): Mosquito net mesh. Tier 3 (low-resource): Serial Bogota tightening (level 2b evidence, pending level 1b).

This positions serial Bogota as WHO-appropriate innovation, transforming waste materials into life-saving DFT while establishing precedent for pragmatic LMIC surgical adaptation[24,27,29]. While safe in Balhara et al’s septic cohort[1] (n = 36), larger trials should monitor these risks in diverse OA etiologies (Table 3).

Table 3 Risk profile comparison.
Risk
Serial Bogota
Towel clips[11]
NPWT[9]
Skin ischemiaNone reported15%-25%5%-10%
Suture cut-throughNone (polypropylene)N/AN/A
Patient discomfortMinimal (analgesia)SevereModerate
Enterocutaneous fistulaComparableHigherLower
Potential risks and limitations of repeated tightening

Balhara et al[1] reported no significant skin ischemia, suture cut-through, or patient discomfort with weekly bedside tightening using continuous polypropylene (Prolene®) sutures. These risks are mitigated by: Material choice: Non-absorbable polypropylene minimizes cut-through (vs nylon). Weekly intervals: Allows tissue adaptation, preventing pressure necrosis. Progressive tension: 1-2 cm weekly advancement respects fascial viscoelastic limits.

OA management progress overview

DFT techniques have revolutionized OA management since the 2010s, achieving primary fascial closure rates of 65%-90% vs 50%-60% with static methods[8,30,31]. Current progress centers on cost-effective adaptations for LMICs, building on Balhara et al’s serial Bogota bag tightening RCT[1] (SSD 9.94 days vs 13 days, P = 0.0003; Table 4).

Table 4 Study outcomes - serial tightening vs control, mean ± SD.
Outcome
Serial tightening (n = 18)
Control (n = 18)
P value
Time to SSD ≤ 5 cm (days)9.94 ± 1.8813.0 ± 2.870.0003
Hospital stay (days)17.0 ± 1.8520.39 ± 3.170.0013
ComplicationsComparableComparableNS
MortalityComparableComparableNS
Current progress

NPWT combined with DFT dominates guidelines, with VAWCM yielding 80% closure rates and low enteroatmospheric fistula incidence (6%). Innovations like Dynatract® (porcine model: Reduced fascial edge distance, P < 0.05) and vertical traction devices (88% early closure) enhance precision. Bogota bag serial tightening, as in Balhara et al[1], costs < 5 dollars vs 300 dollars NPWT dressings, enabling LMIC scalability.

Key controversies

Fascial retraction prevention vs hernia risk persists: VAWCM achieves 73% closure under tension but incurs 20%-30% incisional hernia rates at 1 year. Device costs limit adoption, Fasciotens® (50-60 N traction) succeeds in high-resource settings but fails LMIC feasibility. Early traction (day 1-3) vs delayed application debates enteroatmospheric fistula risk (NPWT alone: 15%; DFT: 5%-10%).

Prevailing viewpoints

WSACS endorses DFT + NPWT as level 1a recommendation for peritonitis OA, prioritizing closure over planned hernia. EAST guidelines favor traction systems (relative risk 0.48 for closure, 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.87). LMIC consensus advocates improvised techniques like Balhara et al’s urine bag method[1] pending multicenter validation.

Critical appraisal

Limitations of Balhara et al’s trial[1] include its small sample size (n = 36), single-center design, use of surrogate primary outcome (SSD ≤ 5 cm rather than definitive fascial closure rates), lack of blinding, and short follow-up period (3 months, capturing no late hernias but precluding long-term assessment). Etiologic heterogeneity (primarily abdominal TB and enteric fever) mirrors real-world OA scenarios in LMICs yet limits subgroup analyses. While CONSORT adherence, baseline comparability (demographics, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, labs), and data transparency enhance credibility, the absence of sample size calculation, allocation concealment details, and intention-to-treat analysis introduces potential bias. No significant differences emerged in complications or mortality, but power constraints hinder detection of subtle morbidity increases from repeated bedside tightening.

Future directions

Larger multicenter RCTs are essential, prioritizing definitive endpoints: Delayed fascial closure rates (target > 70%, per VAWCM benchmarks), incisional hernia incidence (5-20% in IROA registry data across TAC strategies), patient-reported outcomes (e.g., Short-Form 36 for quality of life, hernia-specific disability indices), and need for abdominal wall reconstruction. Trials should span diverse LMIC etiologies (trauma, sepsis, perforations) and resource tiers, incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses (e.g., hospital stay reductions translating to 300-600 dollars savings per case). Integration with WSACS phase III protocols (e.g., COOL trial) could elevate evidence to level 1b. Additional priorities include head-to-head comparisons of low-cost DFT variants (serial Bogota vs perforated drains, mosquito net mesh), training reproducibility assessments for district hospitals, and long-term ventral hernia surveillance (5-year incidence, quality-adjusted life years). These efforts will validate pragmatic innovations while addressing global surgery inequities.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary level 2b evidence from Balhara et al’s single-center RCT[1] (n = 36) suggests serial Bogota bag tightening may accelerate SSD ≤ 5 cm (9.94 days vs 13 days, P = 0.0003) in septic OA without increased complications. This promising bedside technique (approximately 0.50 dollars) requires multicenter RCTs (target n ≥ 400) confirming definitive fascial closure rates (70% benchmark), hernia incidence, and quality-of-life outcomes before broader LMIC implementation.

References
1.  Balhara K, Sikaria A, Saini D, Agrawal H, Gupta N, Agarwal N, Mardi A. Low-cost dynamic fascial traction using serial Bogota bag tightening in open abdomen management: A prospective randomized study. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2026;17:118848.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 1]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Coccolini F, Roberts D, Ansaloni L, Ivatury R, Gamberini E, Kluger Y, Moore EE, Coimbra R, Kirkpatrick AW, Pereira BM, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Abu-Zidan FM, Sartelli M, Velmahos G, Fraga GP, Leppaniemi A, Tolonen M, Galante J, Razek T, Maier R, Bala M, Sakakushev B, Khokha V, Malbrain M, Agnoletti V, Peitzman A, Demetrashvili Z, Sugrue M, Di Saverio S, Martzi I, Soreide K, Biffl W, Ferrada P, Parry N, Montravers P, Melotti RM, Salvetti F, Valetti TM, Scalea T, Chiara O, Cimbanassi S, Kashuk JL, Larrea M, Hernandez JAM, Lin HF, Chirica M, Arvieux C, Bing C, Horer T, De Simone B, Masiakos P, Reva V, DeAngelis N, Kike K, Balogh ZJ, Fugazzola P, Tomasoni M, Latifi R, Naidoo N, Weber D, Handolin L, Inaba K, Hecker A, Kuo-Ching Y, Ordoñez CA, Rizoli S, Gomes CA, De Moya M, Wani I, Mefire AC, Boffard K, Napolitano L, Catena F. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:7.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 251]  [Cited by in RCA: 219]  [Article Influence: 27.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (2)]
3.  Soliman F, Carlson GL, McWhirter D. Management of the open abdomen. Br J Surg. 2024;111:znad341.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Fagertun H, Klepstad P, Åldstedt Nyrønning L, Seternes A. Increasing Use of Prophylactic Open Abdomen Therapy With Vacuum Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh Mediated Fascial Traction After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2024;67:603-610.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Pillay P, Smith MTD, Bruce JL, Clarke DL, Bekker W. The Efficacy of VAMMFT Compared to "Bogota Bag" in Achieving Sheath Closure Following Temporary Abdominal Closure at Index Laparotomy for Trauma. World J Surg. 2023;47:1436-1441.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Fung S, Ashmawy H, Krieglstein C, Halama T, Schilawa D, Fuckert O, Hees A, Kröpil F, Rehders A, Lehwald-Tywuschik NC, Knoefel WT. Vertical traction device prevents abdominal wall retraction and facilitates early primary fascial closure of septic and non-septic open abdomen. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407:2075-2083.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in RCA: 14]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Kirshtein B, Roy-Shapira A, Lantsberg L, Mizrahi S. Use of the "Bogota bag" for temporary abdominal closure in patients with secondary peritonitis. Am Surg. 2007;73:249-252.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 40]  [Cited by in RCA: 37]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Afsar L, Capelli PC, Carvalho G, Ghosh D, Ofosu W, Seelandt C, Trivedi S. Narrative Review of Open Abdomen Management and Comparison of Different Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques. J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025;4:14119.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Petersson P, Petersson U. Dynamic Fascial Closure With Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction (VAWCM) Treatment of the Open Abdomen-An Updated Systematic Review. Front Surg. 2020;7:577104.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 19]  [Article Influence: 3.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Heo Y, Kim DH. The temporary abdominal closure techniques used for trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023;104:237-247.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in RCA: 7]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Navsaria PH, Bunting M, Omoshoro-Jones J, Nicol AJ, Kahn D. Temporary closure of open abdominal wounds by the modified sandwich-vacuum pack technique. Br J Surg. 2003;90:718-722.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 108]  [Cited by in RCA: 93]  [Article Influence: 4.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Abosena W, Tedesco A, Han SM, Bugaev N, Hojman HM, Johnson BP, Kim WC, Bawazeer M, Bloom JA. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Wittmann Patch-Assisted Abdominal Closure Compared to Planned Ventral Hernia in Management of the Open Abdomen. Am Surg. 2024;90:1140-1147.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
13.  Dohmen J, Weissinger D, Peter AST, Theodorou A, Kalff JC, Stoffels B, Lingohr P, von Websky M. Evaluating a novel vertical traction device for early closure in open abdomen management: a consecutive case series. Front Surg. 2024;11:1449702.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Lech GE, Neves BH, Oliveira GT, da Silveira CAB, Kasmirski JA, Lima DL, Cavazzola LT. Vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction for temporary closure in open abdomen: A single-arm meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2024;48:2391-2399.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Gasser E, Rezaie D, Gius J, Lorenz A, Gehwolf P, Perathoner A, Öfner D, Kafka-Ritsch R. Lessons Learned in 11 Years of Experience With Open Abdomen Treatment With Negative-Pressure Therapy for Various Abdominal Emergencies. Front Surg. 2021;8:632929.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in RCA: 11]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Shigeta K, Kim S, Nakae R, Igarashi Y, Sakamoto T, Ogasawara T, Masuno T, Arai M, Yokobori S. Effectiveness of vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction in open abdomen management. Surg Today. 2025;55:335-342.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Poortmans N, Berrevoet F. Dynamic closure techniques for treatment of an open abdomen: an update. Hernia. 2020;24:325-331.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in RCA: 13]  [Article Influence: 2.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Pereira-Warr S, Sierra-Marin JA. Novel technique of temporary abdominal closure with continuous medial fascial traction dynamic for patients with open abdomen. Hernia. 2018;22:691-696.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 4]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Slade DAJ. Open abdomen in secondary peritonitis: time for closure. Br J Surg. 2024;111:znae013.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 2]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Shabhay A, Shabhay Z, Chilonga K, Msuya D, Mwakyembe T, Chugulu S. Standard Urine Collection Bag as an Improvised Bogotá Bag as a Temporary Abdominal Closure Method in an Open Abdomen in Preventing Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Case Rep Surg. 2021;2021:6689000.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 2]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Tarasconi A, Chiara O, Cimbanassi S, Birindelli A, Cirocchi R, Tugnoli G, Di Saverio S.   Open Abdomen Complications: Prevention and Management. In: Coccolini F, Ivatury R, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L, editors. Open Abdomen. Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma. Cham: Springer, 2018.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]
22.  Yanar H, Sivrikoz E. Management of open abdomen: single center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;2013:584378.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in RCA: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Diaz JJ Jr, Cullinane DC, Dutton WD, Jerome R, Bagdonas R, Bilaniuk JW, Collier BR, Como JJ, Cumming J, Griffen M, Gunter OL, Kirby J, Lottenburg L, Mowery N, Riordan WP Jr, Martin N, Platz J, Stassen N, Winston ES. The management of the open abdomen in trauma and emergency general surgery: part 1-damage control. J Trauma. 2010;68:1425-1438.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 117]  [Cited by in RCA: 86]  [Article Influence: 5.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Coccolini F, Catena F, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Manfredi R, Nita GE, Moore EE, Biffl W, Ivatury R, Whelan J, Fraga G, Leppaniemi A, Sartelli M, Di Saverio S, Ansaloni L. IROA: the International Register of Open Abdomen.: An international effort to better understand the open abdomen: call for participants. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:37.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 23]  [Cited by in RCA: 23]  [Article Influence: 2.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Svetanoff WJ, Smithers CJ, Jennings R. Weighted abdominal traction for assistance in abdominal closure. J Pediatr Surg Case Rep. 2018;29:59-62.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 3]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
26.  Coccolini F, Sartelli M, Kirkpatrick AW. What do we mean by source control and what are we trying to accomplish with an open abdomen in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2024;96:e39-e40.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 10]  [Cited by in RCA: 10]  [Article Influence: 5.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, Bickler SW, Conteh L, Dare AJ, Davies J, Mérisier ED, El-Halabi S, Farmer PE, Gawande A, Gillies R, Greenberg SL, Grimes CE, Gruen RL, Ismail EA, Kamara TB, Lavy C, Lundeg G, Mkandawire NC, Raykar NP, Riesel JN, Rodas E, Rose J, Roy N, Shrime MG, Sullivan R, Verguet S, Watters D, Weiser TG, Wilson IH, Yamey G, Yip W. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386:569-624.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2883]  [Cited by in RCA: 2725]  [Article Influence: 247.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801-810.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 22160]  [Cited by in RCA: 20125]  [Article Influence: 2012.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (35)]
29.  Kirkpatrick AW, Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, Roberts DJ, Tolonen M, McKee JL, Leppaniemi A, Faris P, Doig CJ, Catena F, Fabian T, Jenne CN, Chiara O, Kubes P, Manns B, Kluger Y, Fraga GP, Pereira BM, Diaz JJ, Sugrue M, Moore EE, Ren J, Ball CG, Coimbra R, Balogh ZJ, Abu-Zidan FM, Dixon E, Biffl W, MacLean A, Ball I, Drover J, McBeth PB, Posadas-Calleja JG, Parry NG, Di Saverio S, Ordonez CA, Xiao J, Sartelli M; Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) after Source Control for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis Investigators. Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:26.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 69]  [Cited by in RCA: 67]  [Article Influence: 8.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Muafa HM, Balkam MA.   Early (≤7-Day) Definitive Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen Reduces Long-Term Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2026 Preprint. Available from: researchsquare.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]
31.  Warner RL, Meschia C, Mowery NT. Open Abdomen in Emergency General Surgery: Indications and Outcomes. Curr Surg Rep. 2024;12:238-244.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]
Footnotes

Peer review: Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country of origin: Ethiopia

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific quality: Grade B, Grade B

Novelty: Grade B, Grade B

Creativity or innovation: Grade B, Grade B

Scientific significance: Grade B, Grade B

P-Reviewer: Ghannam WM, Additional Professor, MD, Professor, Egypt; Isik A, Academic Fellow, Consultant, MD, PhD, Professor, United States S-Editor: Wu S L-Editor: A P-Editor: Zhao YQ

Write to the Help Desk