ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Outcomes of laparoscopic primary gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric perforation: experience from a single surgeon.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factor analysis and surgical outcomes in emergency gastrectomy for gastric perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastrectomy for Perforated Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Perforated gastric cancer: a critical appraisal.Discover oncology · 2021Review
- Perforation on the superior side of duodenum is a risk factor of laparoscopic primary repair for duodenal ulcer perforation.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2021Article
- Feasibility of a "Stomach-preserving Strategy" for Perforated Gastric Cancer in Patients With Distant Metastasis.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer perforation is rare and difficult to distinguish from gastric ulcer perforation before surgery. Peritonitis caused by gastric perforation requires emergency surgery. The optimal surgical strategy for gastric perforation has not been established. MATERIAL AND
methodsData from 43 patients who underwent primary gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric perforation between June 2010 and November 2019 were reviewed. Patients were classified into gastric ulcer and gastric cancer groups. Early surgical outcomes and overall survival were assessed.
resultsThere were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups except regarding preoperative shock. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 35 of 43 patients. There were no conversions to open surgery. The surgical findings demonstrated that the gastric cancer group had larger mass lesions with significantly larger perforations than did the gastric ulcer group. There were no significant differences in early surgical outcomes. Severe postoperative complications occurred in nine patients, five of whom died within one month of surgery. The majority of patients (90%) had stage III or IV gastric cancer. The 5-year survival rate was 19.5%.
conclusionWe found no definitive differences in clinical characteristics distinguishing gastric cancer from ulcers. Considering our surgical outcomes, laparoscopic primary gastrectomy performed by an expert is a useful technique for emergency gastric perforation. However, unless an expert is available, caution should be used when selecting laparoscopic primary gastrectomy with curative intent as a surgical method.
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.