Laparoscopic <i>versus</i> open liver resection in patients aged at least 80 years: retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity than, and similar global outcomes to, open liver resection. There is no robust evidence that these outcomes lead to similar clinical outcomes in patients aged over 80 years. The aim of this study was to analyse the short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic liver resection in patients over 80 years old. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken. The study population comprised patients aged ≥ 80 years who underwent laparoscopic or open liver resection between January 2014 and December 2019, and who presented with resectable malignant tumours. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity, according to Dindo-Clavien grading. Cox regression models were used to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was performed to balance the two groups according to independent prognostic factors for morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 988 patients were analysed from 34 centres (16 from Asia, 14 from Europe and 4 from America): 487 in the open group and 501 in the laparoscopic group. Independent risk factors associated with severe morbidity were the open approach (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.11; P < 0.001), Charlson Co-morbidity Index score > 7 (HR 1.69, 1.26 to 2.27; P < 0.001), more than one resected tumour (hazard ratio 1.55, 1.13 to 2.11; P = 0.006), major hepatectomy (hazard ratio 1.86, 1.22 to 2.83; P = 0.003), and Iwate score ≥ 7 (hazard ratio 1.43, 1.02 to 2.01; P = 0.03). Before propensity score matching, severe morbidity, length of intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission were better in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.050). These observations were confirmed after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach is a safe procedure for elderly patients, with better morbidity and mortality outcomes than the open approach, and should be considered as a default option.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".