Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477237›Full record

ReviewAging clinical and experimental research2026

Frailty, physiological reserve, and surgical resilience: toward a dynamic stress-recovery model.

Rafal Cudnik, Mirko Barone, Luigi Marano, Simone Gargarella, Ruslan Duka, Robert Molchanov, Sergii Girnyi, Tomasz Cwalinski, Mahmoud Al-Balas, Yogesh Vashist and 9 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

19 authors.

Rafal Cudnik *Emergency Department, Saint Wojciech Hospital, Nicolaus Copernicus Health Center, Gdańsk, Poland.
Mirko BaroneDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, SS. Annunziata University Hospital, Chieti, Italy.
Luigi Marano *Department of Surgery, Dnipro State Medical University, Volodymyra Vernadskoho St 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine. l.marano@amisns.edu.pl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9777-9588
Simone GargarellaDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, SS. Annunziata University Hospital, Chieti, Italy.
Ruslan DukaDepartment of Surgery, Dnipro State Medical University, Volodymyra Vernadskoho St 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine.
Robert MolchanovDepartment of Surgery, Dnipro State Medical University, Volodymyra Vernadskoho St 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine.
Sergii GirnyiDepartment of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Saint Wojciech Hospital, Nicolaus Copernicus Health Center, Gdańsk, Poland.
Tomasz CwalinskiDepartment of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Saint Wojciech Hospital, Nicolaus Copernicus Health Center, Gdańsk, Poland.
Mahmoud Al-BalasDepartment of General Surgery, Anesthesia and Urology, Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Yogesh VashistDepartment of Medicine, Academy of Applied Medical and Social Sciences- AMiSNS (Akademia Medycznych I Spolecznych Nauk Stosowanych), Elbląg, Poland.
Lorenzo CobianchiDepartment of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Silvia MalerbaDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Francesco Paolo PreteDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Mario TestiniDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Valentin CaluDepartment of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania.
Archil AladashviliBakhutashvili Institute of Medical Biotechnology, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Kamal MahawarDepartment of Surgery, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK.
Arda IsikDepartment of Surgery, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Virginia BoccardiSection of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronological age remains widely used in perioperative decision-making but incompletely captures the biological heterogeneity that influences postoperative outcomes. Frailty has substantially advanced surgical risk assessment by shifting attention from age toward multidimensional vulnerability and diminished physiological reserve. Nevertheless, patients with similar frailty profiles often experience markedly different recovery trajectories, suggesting that baseline vulnerability alone may not fully explain postoperative adaptation.

methodsThis narrative conceptual review was developed through a targeted search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar, focusing on frailty, physiological reserve, physical resilience, intrinsic capacity, prehabilitation, and postoperative recovery. Peer-reviewed clinical studies, reviews, and conceptual frameworks from geroscience and perioperative medicine were synthesized to develop an integrated model of surgical resilience.

resultsEmerging evidence indicates that frailty and resilience represent related but distinct constructs. Frailty primarily identifies vulnerability before stress exposure, whereas resilience reflects the dynamic capacity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from physiological perturbation. Recent perioperative studies suggest that postoperative outcomes are influenced not only by baseline reserve but also by the interaction between reserve, surgical stress exposure, and recovery capacity. Within this framework, skeletal muscle function, nutritional status, cognition, inflammatory burden, and functional independence appear to contribute to an individual's adaptive potential. Surgery represents a uniquely informative human model through which stress-response biology and recovery trajectories can be studied longitudinally.

conclusionsWe propose surgical physiological resilience as a dynamic stress-recovery phenotype emerging from the interaction among three interconnected domains: baseline reserve, surgical stress load, and recovery capacity. This framework extends current frailty-based approaches by incorporating longitudinal adaptation and recoverability after surgical stress. Reframing perioperative medicine around resilience may support trajectory-based risk stratification, targeted prehabilitation strategies, longitudinal functional monitoring, and the future development of a dynamic Surgical Resilience Index capable of capturing postoperative heterogeneity more accurately than chronological age or static vulnerability measures alone.

Indexed as

FrailtyStress, PhysiologicalAdaptation, PhysiologicalFrail ElderlyHumansFrailtyPerioperative carePhysiological reservePostoperative recoverySurgical resilience

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.