ARTICLE DOWNLOAD

Validation and performance of three-level procedure-based classification for laparoscopic liver resection

10.00$
ARTICLE DOWNLOAD

Validation and performance of three-level procedure-based classification for laparoscopic liver resection

10.00$

Yoshikuni Kawaguchi, Shogo Tanaka, David Fuks, Akishige Kanazawa, Yutaka Takeda, Fumitoshi Hirokawa, Hiroyuki Nitta, Takayoshi Nakajima, Takashi Kaizu, Masaki Kaibori, Toru Kojima, Yuichiro Otsuka, Shoji Kubo, Kiyoshi Hasegawa, Norihiro Kokudo, Hironori Kaneko, Go Wakabayashi & Brice Gayet 

Abstract

Background

A procedure-based laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) classification (IMM classification) stratified 11 different LLR procedures into 3 grades. IMM classification assessed the difficulty of LLR differently than an index-based LLR classification (IWATE criteria), which scored each procedure on an index scale of 12. We validated the difference of 3 IMM grades using an external cohort, evaluated the IMM classification using the scores of the IWATE criteria, and compared the performance of IMM classification with the IWATE criteria and the minor/major classification.

Methods

Patients undergoing LLR without simultaneous procedures were selected from a prospectively maintained database at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM cohort) and from the database of 43 Japanese institutions (JMI cohort). Surgical and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to the 3 IMM grades using the JMI cohort. The 11 LLR procedures included in the IMM classification were scored according to the IWATE criteria. The area under the curves (AUCs) for surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

In the JMI (n = 1867) cohort, operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, and major complication rate were significantly associated with a stepwise increase in grades from I to III (all, P < 0.001). In the IMM (n = 433) and JMI cohorts, IMM grades I, II, and III corresponded to three low-scoring, two intermediate-scoring, and six high-scoring LLR procedures as per the IWATE criteria, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation among the IMM grades were significantly different: 3.7 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 7.5 ± 1.7 (grade II) versus 10.2 ± 1.0 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the IMM cohort and 3.6 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 6.7 ± 1.5 (grade II) versus 9.3 ± 1.4 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the JMI cohort. The AUCs for surgical and postoperative outcomes are higher for the 3-level IMM classification than for the minor/major classification.

Conclusions

The difference of 3 IMM grades with respect to surgical and postoperative outcomes was validated using an external cohort. The 3-level procedure-based IMM classification was in accordance with the index-based IWATE criteria. The IMM classification performed better than the minor/major classification for stratifying LLR procedures.

Only units of this product remain
Year 2020
Language English
Format PDF
DOI 10.1007/s00464-019-06986-6