Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40195786›Full record

ArticleBJS open2025

Omental preservation versus omentectomy in curative-intent gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Swedish population-based cohort study.

Biying Huang, Chih-Han Kung, Andrianos Tsekrekos, Fredrik Klevebro, Raphaela Mayerhofer, Laura Vossen Engblom, Mats Lindblad, Jakob Hedberg, Eva Szabo, David Edholm and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Biying HuangDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3774-1772
Chih-Han KungDepartment of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Andrianos TsekrekosDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fredrik KlevebroDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1695-4103
Raphaela MayerhoferDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Laura Vossen EngblomDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mats LindbladDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3575-6986
Jakob HedbergDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala  Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1308-4592
Eva SzaboDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
David EdholmDepartment of Surgery, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2172-5310
Ulrika SmedhDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jan JohanssonDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, and Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ioannis RouvelasDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magnus NilssonDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6215-8132

Funding

Centre for Innovative Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden I.R., FoUI-961729Swedish Cancer Society J.H., CAN 2017/1086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOmentectomy has traditionally been performed in gastric cancer surgery, but omental preservation has become increasingly common. It is unclear whether omentectomy leads to additional survival benefit compared with omental preservation. This nationwide population-based cohort study aimed to assess survival and surgical outcomes comparing omental preservation to omentectomy in curative-intent gastrectomy.

methodsPatients were identified from the Swedish National Registry for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer with inclusion between 2006 and 2022. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed by a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, clinical T and N stage, type of gastrectomy, surgical approach, extent of lymphadenectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery year and regional cancer centre. Secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes including tumour-free resection margins, lymph node yield and postoperative complications.

resultsA total of 1615 patients were included, 517 (32.0%) underwent gastrectomy with omental preservation, and 1098 (68.0%) underwent gastrectomy with omentectomy. Overall survival after omental preservation was similar compared with omentectomy in the multivariable Cox model (HR 1.00, 95% c.i. 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.967). Omental preservation also had similar surgical outcomes including lymph node yield and postoperative morbidity rate, compared with omentectomy.

conclusionsOmental preservation was similar to omentectomy in terms of overall survival and surgical outcomes. The results suggest that omentectomy can safely be omitted in curative-intent gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

GastrectomyOmentumStomach NeoplasmsAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProportional Hazards ModelsRegistriesSwedenTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40195786
PMCPMC11975804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.