Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years old: an NSQIP analysis of 4343 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of MIS in older adults are conflicting. This study evaluates demographics and early outcomes, for older patients (≥75) undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHOD: We categorized elderly patients who underwent PD from 2017 to 2021 NSQIP databases by surgical approach (open vs MIS). Baseline characteristics were examined with bivariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression assessed the independent effect of minimally invasive surgery on 30-day serious complications and mortality. RESULTS: Amongst 4137 patients, 150 (3.63 %) underwent MIS PD. Patients demographics were similar. Open cohorts were older (79.1 vs 78.4 years; p = 0.011) with greater tumor invasion (36.6 % vs. 27.0 %; p = 0.018). MIS had longer operations (133.1 vs 119.6 min; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that MIS approach was associated with increased serious complications (OR 2.21; p < 0.001), but not mortality (OR 2.11; p = 0.173). Post hoc analysis excluding cases converted to open demonstrated no difference in serious complications (OR 1.94; p = 0.070) or mortality (OR 3.58; p = 0.094). PSM analysis estimated a 14.7 % higher rate of serious complications in MIS but similar mortality (p = 0.291). CONCLUSIONS: MIS PD uptake in elderly patients remains limited, with early findings indicating longer operations and higher complications. Further research on patient selection differences, technique modifications, and center expertise is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".