Perioperative Outcomes of No-Drain Strategy in Primary Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is an emergent condition managed by surgical intervention. No conclusive evidence has been produced regarding the need for drain placement after primary repair. Our meta-analysis aimed to provide insight into the short-term outcomes by comparing the two strategies of drain omission or intra-operative placement of at least one drain. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were utilized to identify articles of interest. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Version 5.4. Eligible studies were comparative studies (RCTs and observational studies) enrolling adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing emergency primary repair for PPU, with or without prophylactic intra-abdominal drain placement; case reports and series of fewer than 10 patients were excluded. The literature search covered January 2010 to 22 February 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I V2 tool for observational studies; certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); statistical heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Results: Five studies were considered for comparison, for a total of 1354 patients (744 and 610 in the drain and no-drain groups, respectively). Three were randomized controlled trials, and two were retrospective cohort studies, conducted across four countries (India, the USA, Egypt, and Japan). Meta-analysis of the pooled results showed that drain omission was associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS) (MD -2.13, 95% CI [-3.91--0.35], p < 0.0001) and a lower rate of superficial surgical site infections (SSIs) (16.7% vs. 52.7%, OR 0.24, 95%CI [0.11-0.55], p = 0.0007). No difference was observed regarding the rate of leaks, reoperation, or deep SSIs. Low-certainty evidence suggested higher postoperative mortality in the no-drain group (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.48; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), largely driven by retrospective studies with a high risk of bias. This mortality finding is of very low certainty and is most likely attributable to confounding in the observational studies rather than a true causal effect of drain omission. Several outcomes were based on data from only two to three studies, and the overall certainty of evidence was low to very low. Conclusions: Drain omission after primary repair for PPU may be associated with better outcomes in terms of LOS and superficial SSIs, primarily in lower-acuity patients, as reflected by the inclusion criteria of the contributing RCTs. Pooled analysis showed a higher postoperative mortality in the no-drain group; however, given the significant biases among included studies, our results should be interpreted as non-causal and thus require careful interpretation. Further research encompassing the full clinical spectrum of PPU is needed to confirm our results. Evidence certainty was low to very low across all outcomes, primarily due to a risk of bias, high heterogeneity (I2 up to 95% for LOS), indirectness, and imprecision.