Timing of Fascial Closure After Damage Control Laparotomy for Trauma: A PRISMA 2020–Compliant Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is a life-saving strategy for critically injured trauma patients but is associated with significant morbidity when the abdomen remains open. Early definitive fascial closure is advocated; however, the optimal timing—particularly closure within 48 hours—remains controversial. Objective: To systematically review and synthesize available evidence evaluating the impact of fascial closure timing, specifically ≤48 hours versus >48 hours, on outcomes following DCL. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar. Study Eligibility Criteria: Peer-reviewed studies involving adult trauma patients undergoing DCL that reported outcomes related to timing of re-laparotomy or fascial closure. Results: Six studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. No study directly compared definitive fascial closure ≤48 hours versus >48 hours as a primary exposure. Registry-based evidence consistently demonstrated that failure to achieve primary fascial closure during index hospitalization was associated with markedly increased mortality and enterocutaneous fistula formation (DuBose et al., 2013; Bradley et al., 2013). Earlier re-laparotomy (within 24–48 hours) predicted higher likelihood of successful closure (Pommerening et al., 2014). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that planned reoperation ≤48 hours increased re-bleeding risk without mortality benefit (Seo et al., 2025). Conclusions: Achieving definitive primary fascial closure is paramount. While early re-laparotomy facilitates closure, rigid adherence to a 48-hour rule for definitive closure is not supported by current evidence. Closure decisions should be physiology-guided. Prospective studies directly evaluating definitive closure timing are needed.

Article activity feed