Dataset Information

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective(s)

The technical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) poses unique challenges distinct from open surgery. An objective scoring system was developed that preoperatively quantifies the difficulty of LRR to help guide surgeon decision-making regarding the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this multiinstitutional study was to externally validate this scoring system.

Methods

Patients who underwent LLR at two institutions were reviewed. LLR difficulty score (LDS) was calculated based on patient, tumor, and anatomic characteristics by two independent, blinded hepatobiliary surgeons. Surrogates of case complexity (e.g., conversion rate, operative time) were used for validation of this index.

Results

From 2006 to 2016, 444 LLR were scored as low (n = 94), intermediate (n = 98), and high difficulty (n = 152) with respective conversion rates of 5.3%, 15.7%, and 25%. Cases of higher LDS correlated with larger mean blood loss (203 ml vs. 331 ml vs. 635 ml). Mean operative and Pringle maneuver used were associated with increasing LDS (155 min vs. 202 min vs. 315 min and 14.4% vs. 29.7% vs. 45.1% respectively). These operative surrogates of difficulty correlated significantly with the LDS (all p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This comprehensive external validation of the LDS is robust and applicable in diverse patient populations. This LDS serves as a useful objective predictor of technical difficulty for LLR to help surgeons in selecting patients according to their individual operative experience and is valuable for preoperative risk estimation and stratification in randomized trials.

SUBMITTER: Lee SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7545446 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

Lee Ser Yee SY Goh Brian K P BKP Sepideh Gholami G Allen John C JC Merkow Ryan P RP Teo Jin Yao JY Chandra Deepa D Koh Ye Xin YX Tan Ek Khoon EK Kam Juinn Haur JH Cheow Peng Chung PC Chow Pierce K H PKH Ooi London L P J LLPJ Chung Alexander Y F AYF D'Angelica Michael I MI Jarnagin William R WR Peter Kingham T T Chan Chung Yip CY

Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 20181112 3

<h4>Objective(s)</h4>The technical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) poses unique challenges distinct from open surgery. An objective scoring system was developed that preoperatively quantifies the difficulty of LRR to help guide surgeon decision-making regarding the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this multiinstitutional study was to externally validate this scoring system.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients who underwent LLR at two institutions were revi ...[more]

PMID: 30421119

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to externally validate and upgrade the recent difficulty scoring system (DSS) proposed by Halls et al. to predict intraoperative complications (IOC) during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS:The DSS was validated in a cohort of 128 consecutive patients undergoing pure LLRs between 2008 and 2019 at a single tertiary referral center. The validated DSS includes four difficulty levels based on five risk factors (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, previous open liver resection, lesion type, lesion size and classification of resection). As established by the validated DSS, IOC was defined as excessive blood loss (>?775?mL), conversion to an open approach and unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Additionally, intra- and postoperative outcomes were compared according to the difficulty levels with usual statistic methods. The same five risk factors were used for validation done by linear and advanced nonlinear (artificial neural network) models. The study was supported by mathematical computations to obtain a mean risk curve predicting the probability of IOC for every difficulty score. RESULTS:The difficulty level of LLR was rated as low, moderate, high and extremely high in 36 (28.1%), 63 (49.2%), 27 (21.1%) and 2 (1.6%) patients, respectively. IOC was present in 23 (17.9%) patients. Blood loss of >775?mL occurred in 8 (6.2%) patients. Conversion to open approach was required in 18 (14.0%) patients. No patients suffered from unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Rates of IOC (0, 9.5, 55.5 and 100%) increased gradually with statistically significant value among difficulty levels (P?<?0.001). The relations between the difficulty level, need for transfusion, operative time, hepatic pedicle clamping, and major postoperative morbidity were statistically significant (P?<?0.05). Linear and nonlinear validation models showed a strong correlation (correlation coefficients 0.914 and 0.948, respectively) with the validated DSS. The Weibull cumulative distribution function was used for predicting the mean risk probability curve of IOC. CONCLUSION:This external validation proved this DSS based on patient's, tumor and surgical factors enables us to estimate the risk of intra- and postoperative complications. A surgeon should be aware of an increased risk of complications before starting with more complex procedures.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: We aimed to categorize laparoscopic rectal resections according to technical difficulty to standardize learning purposes and stratify results, making future studies more comparable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were prospectively followed. Four preoperatively known facts (gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor localization, and preoperative radiation therapy) were compared to four operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, a visual analogue score (VAS) for difficulty rewarded by the surgeon, and oncological radicality of the procedure). RESULTS: Operating time for male and female patients was 257 vs. 245 min (P=0.229), blood loss was 300 vs. 300 ml (P=0.309), the VAS was 8 vs. 6 (P<0.001), and radicality was 93% vs. 91% (P=0.806). Operating time was 215, 250, and 305 min for high, mid, and low tumors (Spearman -0.44; P=0.02), respectively. Blood loss was 105, 300, and 600 ml (Spearman -0.38; P=0.01). Lower tumors were rewarded a higher VAS (Spearman -0.57; P<0.001) and were less often radically resected (Spearman 0.32; P=0.026). Operating time for irradiated and nonirradiated patients was 277 vs. 225 min (P=0.008), blood loss was 500 vs. 150 ml (P=0.006), the VAS was 7 vs. 5 (P<0.001), and radicality was 79% vs. 100% (P=0.046). Operating time was 240 min for BMI 25-30 and 253 min for BMI>30 (Spearman 0.13; P=0.391). Blood loss was 150 ml for BMI 25-30 and 500 ml for BMI>30 (Spearman 0.38; P=0.01). Higher BMIs were rewarded a higher VAS (Spearman 0.06; P=0.704). BMI had no correlation to radicality of the procedure (Spearman -0.12; P=0.402). There was an association between technical difficulty score and operation time (P=0.007), blood loss (P<0.001), VAS (P<0.001), and radicality of surgery (P=0.043). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery in male, irradiated, and obese patients with lower tumors seemed more difficult. A categorization according to technical difficulty, to preoperatively predict difficulty of the procedure, was found feasible.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the value of total laparoscopic simultaneous colorectal and hepatic resection in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases (sCRLMs).MethodssCRLM patients who underwent simultaneous resection from December 2014 to December 2018 in Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University were recruited and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into laparoscopic, open, and hybrid surgery groups. The intraoperative information, postoperative short-term outcome, and long-term survival were compared among the three groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baselines.ResultsA total of 281 patients were recruited. After PSM, 34 patients were selected from both the laparoscopic and the open surgery group. Forty-seven patients were also selected from both the laparoscopic and the hybrid surgery group. The clinicopathologic baselines between the laparoscopic surgery group and the other two groups were well matched. All the operation-related indicators between laparoscopic surgery and hybrid surgery were similar. However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery showed significantly longer operation time (229.09 ± 10.94 min vs. 192.24 ± 9.49 min, p = 0.013) and less intraoperative blood loss [100.00 (50.00-300.00) ml vs. 200.00 (150.00-400.00) ml, p = 0.021]. For postoperative morbidity, there was no significant difference between the laparoscopic surgery group and the hybrid or the open surgery group (23.40% vs. 31.91% and 17.65% vs. 26.47%, p = 0.356 and p = 0.380). Long-term survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences in all 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival, liver recurrence-free survival (RFS), and whole RFS between laparoscopic surgery and hybrid surgery (p = 0.334, p = 0.286, and p = 0.558) or open surgery (p = 0.230, p = 0.348, and p = 0.450).ConclusionsLaparoscopic simultaneous resection for sCRLM shows slight advantages in surgical safety and short-term outcome, and does not compromise long-term survival.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

Objective(s)

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets