Laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for elderly patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) comparing with open gastrectomy (OG) in elderly population. METHODS: Studies comparing LG with OG for elderly population with gastric cancer, published between January 1994 and July 2015, were identified in the PubMed, Embase, and ISI Web of Science databases. Operative outcomes (intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and the number of lymph nodes harvested) and postoperative outcomes (time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity) were included and analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the pooled study. A funnel plot was used to evaluate the publication bias. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 845 patients were included in the meta-analysis. LG in comparison to OG showed less intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD) -127.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) -202.79 to -52.16; P < 0.01), earlier time to first ambulation (WMD -2.07; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.30; P < 0.01), first flatus (WMD -1.04; 95% CI -1.45 to -0.63; P < 0.01), and oral intake (WMD -0.94; 95% CI -1.11 to -0.77; P < 0.01), postoperative hospital stay (WMD -5.26; 95% CI -7.58 to -2.93; P < 0.01), lower overall postoperative complication rate (odd ratio (OR) 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; P < 0.01), less surgical complications (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; P < 0.01), medical complication (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.56; P < 0.01), incisional complication (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85; P = 0.02), and pulmonary infection (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.93; P = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between LG and OG for the number of harvested lymph nodes. However, LG had longer operative times (WMD 15.73; 95% CI 6.23 to 25.23; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LG is a feasible and safe approach for elderly patients with gastric cancer. Compared with OG, LG has less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and reduced postoperative morbidity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".