Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024923›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2022

Modified Frailty Index to Assess Risk in Elderly Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Salvatore Paiella, Matteo De Pastena, Alessandro Esposito, Erica Secchettin, Luca Casetti, Giuseppe Malleo, Greta Montagnini, Elisa Bannone, Giacomo Deiro, Beatrice Bampa and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Salvatore PaiellaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Matteo De PastenaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro EspositoGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy. alessandro.esposito@aovr.veneto.it.
Erica SecchettinGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Luca CasettiGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Giuseppe MalleoGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Greta MontagniniGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Elisa BannoneGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Giacomo DeiroGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Beatrice BampaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Marco RameraGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Luca LandoniGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Alberto BalduzziGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Claudio BassiGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Roberto SalviaGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy.
University of Verona · ITPancreas Centre (Canada) · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the postoperative course of elderly patients (≥70 years) submitted to minimally invasive (MIDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and to evaluate if the modified Frailty Index (mFI) predicts the surgical course of elderly patients submitted to DP.

methodsData of patients aged ≥70 who underwent DP at a single institution between March 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. A 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Then, postoperative complications were compared between the two groups (MIDP vs. ODP). Additionally, the entire cohort of DP elderly patients was stratified according to the mFI into three groups: non-frail (mFI = 0), mildly frail (mFI = 1/2), or severely frail (mFI = 3) and then compared.

resultsA total of 204 patients were analyzed. After PSM, 40 MIDP and 80 ODP patients were identified. The complications considered stratified homogenously between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences. The severity of the postoperative course increased as mFI did among the three groups regarding any complication (p = 0.022), abdominal collection (p = 0.014), pulmonary complication (p = 0.001), postoperative confusion (p = 0.047), Clavien-Dindo severity ≥3 events (p = 0.036), and length of stay (p = 0.018).

conclusionsElderly patients can be safely submitted to MIDP. The mFI identifies frail elderly patients more prone to develop surgical and non-surgical complications after DP.

Indexed as

FrailtyLaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansPancreatectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35024923
PMCPMC8885554
OpenAlexW4206122931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.