Background: Perforated gastric ulcers are surgical emergencies with paucity of data on the preferred treatment modality of resection versus omental patch. We aim to compare outcomes with ulcer repair and gastric resection surgeries in perforated gastric ulcers after systematic review of literature.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for publications in PubMed Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included all studies which compared ulcer repair vesus gastric resection surgeries for perforated gastric ulcers. We excluded studies which did not separate outcomes gastric and duodenal ulcer perforations.
Results: The search included nine single-institution retrospective reviews comparing ulcer repair (449 patients) versus gastric resection surgeries (212 patients). Meta-analysis was restricted to perforated gastric ulcers and excluded perforated duodenal ulcers. The majority of these studies did not control for baseline characteristics, and surgical strategies were often chosen in a non-randomized manner. All of the studies included were at high risk of bias. The overall odds ratio of mortality in ulcer repair surgery compared to gastric resection surgery was 1.79, with 95% CI 0.72 to 4.43 and p-value 0.209.
Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, there was no difference in mortality between the two surgical groups. The overall equivalence of clinical outcomes suggests that gastric resection is a potentially viable alternative to ulcer repair surgery and should not be considered a secondary strategy. We would recommend a multicenter randomized control trial to evaluate the surgical approach that yields superior outcomes.
Level of evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Keywords: Emergency surgery; Gastric resection; Gastric ulcer; Omental patch; Peptic ulcer repair; Perforated gastric ulcer.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.