ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Retrospective comparative study of different surgical methods for gastric ulcer perforation: Efficacy and postoperative complications.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of a new method of a biopatch based on the central concept of the multi-layer repair.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Retrospective Study on Various Surgical Approaches for Gastric Ulcer Perforation. A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Balancing emergency repair and oncological safety in gastric ulcer perforations.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric ulcer perforation is a critical condition that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality if not promptly addressed. It is often the result of chronic peptic ulcer disease, which is characterized by a breach in the gastric wall due to ulceration. Surgical intervention is essential for managing this life-threatening complication. However, the optimal surgical technique remains debatable among clinicians. Various methods have been employed, including simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Understanding the comparative efficacy and postoperative outcomes of these techniques is crucial for improving patient care and surgical decision-making. This study addresses the need for a comprehensive analysis in this area.
aimTo compare the efficacy and postoperative complications of different surgical methods for the treatment of gastric ulcer perforation.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients who underwent surgery for gastric ulcer perforation between September 2020 and June 2023. The patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical method: Simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy. The primary outcomes were the operative success rate and incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, recovery time, and long-term quality of life.
resultsThe operative success rates for simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy were 92.5%, 95%, and 97.5%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 20%, 15%, and 17.5% of patients in each group, respectively. The partial gastrectomy group showed a significantly longer operative time (
conclusionWhile all three surgical methods showed high success rates, omental patch repair demonstrated the best overall outcomes, with a balance of high efficacy, low complication rates, and shorter recovery time. However, the choice of the surgical method should be tailored to individual patient factors and the surgeon's expertise.
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.