Partial versus total omentectomy in patients with gastric cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Shion Wei Chai, Suo Hsien Wang, Chih Yuan Wang, Yi Chan Chen, Ruey Shyang Soong, Ting Shuo Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Surgical treatment is the key to cure localized gastric cancer. There is no strong evidence that supports the value of omentectomy. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of partial and total omentectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All studies that compared total and partial omentectomy as treatments for gastric cancer were included. The primary outcomes were patients’ overall survival and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes were perioperative outcome and postoperative complications. Results: A total of nine studies were examined, wherein 1043 patients were included in the partial omentectomy group, and 1995 in the total omentectomy group. The partial omentectomy group was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.98, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), shorter operative time, and lesser blood loss than the total omentectomy group. In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed in the number of dissected lymph nodes, length of hospital stays, complication rate, and disease-free survival. Conclusions: Our results show that, compared with total omentectomy in gastric cancer surgery, partial omentectomy had non-inferior oncological outcomes and comparable safety outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Article number4971
Issue number19
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2021
Externally publishedYes


  • Gastrectomy
  • Gastric cancer
  • Partial omentectomy
  • Survival
  • Total omentectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Partial versus total omentectomy in patients with gastric cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this