Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-4036-y. [Epub ahead of print]

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

Author information

1
Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. lee.ser.yee@singhealth.com.sg.
2
Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. lee.ser.yee@singhealth.com.sg.
3
Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
4
Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
5
Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
6
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore, Singapore.
7
Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

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.

KEYWORDS:

Difficulty score; Laparoscopic liver resection

PMID:
30421119
DOI:
10.1007/s11605-018-4036-y

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center