SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2022
Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly vs. Younger Patients: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- High Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Risk as a Predictor of Postoperative Complications and Early Mortality in Older Adult Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Malignancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients < 75 years versus ≥ 75 years old: a comparative study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Article
- Short‑ and long‑term outcomes after laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for elderly patients: a propensity score‑matched study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and poor functional reserve remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPD in elderly patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies published from their inception to January 2022 reporting perioperative outcomes after LPD in elderly patients were included in the search (Group 1, comparing the perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in elderly patients; Group 2, comparing the perioperative outcomes after LPD between elderly and non-elderly patients). The evaluated outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative complications, conversion, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and readmission. Results: In total 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of Group 1 showed that EBL, 90-day mortality, major morbidity, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, POP, POCE, and readmission were not significantly different between the LPD and the OPD group. LPD was associated with longer operative time, lower POPF rate, lower DEG rate, and shorter POHS. Pooled analysis of Group 2 showed that mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DEG, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, conversion, operative time, EBL, and readmission were not significantly different between the elderly and the non-elderly group. The POHS of elderly group was significantly longer than non-elderly group. Conclusion: LPD may be a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients and is associated with short POHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.