BMI as a Predictor for Perioperative Outcome of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: a Pooled Analysis of Comparative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a long-lasting controversy about whether higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Recently, a number of newly published investigations have made it possible to draw a quantitative conclusion. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to clarify the exact effect that BMI imposes on perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies in English that investigated perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with different BMIs were included. Quality of studies was evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. INTERVENTION: The risk factor of interest was BMI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effective sizes were pooled under a random-effects model to evaluate preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. We found that higher BMI was associated with significantly longer operative time (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.01), and higher incidence of conversion to open surgery (p < 0.001). Moreover, BMI was a risk factor for overall complication rates (p < 0.001), especially for ileus (p = 0.02) and events of the urinary system (p = 0.03). Significant association was identified between higher BMI and risk of surgical site infection (p < 0.001) and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.02). Higher BMI might also led to a reduced number of harvest lymph nodes for patients with colorectal cancer (p = 0.02). The heterogeneity test identified no significant cross-study heterogeneity, and the results of cumulative meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the publication bias test verified the reliability of our study. LIMITATIONS: Most studies included were retrospectively designed. CONCLUSIONS: Body mass index is a practical and valuable measurement for the prediction of the perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcome. More accurate conclusions, with more precise cutoff values, can be achieved by future well-designed prospective investigations.
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 | 0.041 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".