Yoshikuni Kawaguchi1,2, Shogo Tanaka3, David Fuks4, Akishige Kanazawa5, Yutaka Takeda6, Fumitoshi Hirokawa7, Hiroyuki Nitta8, Takayoshi Nakajima9, Takashi Kaizu10, Masaki Kaibori11, Toru Kojima12, Yuichiro Otsuka13, Shoji Kubo14, Kiyoshi Hasegawa15, Norihiro Kokudo16, Hironori Kaneko13, Go Wakabayashi17, Brice Gayet4. 1. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. yokawaguchi-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. yokawaguchi-tky@umin.ac.jp. 3. Departments of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3 Asahimachi, Abenoku, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan. m8827074@msic.med.osaka-cu.ac.jp. 4. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 5. Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 6. Department of Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan. 7. Department of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki, Japan. 8. Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan. 9. Department of Surgery, Meiwa Hospital, Nishinomiya, Japan. 10. Department of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan. 11. Department of Surgery, Hirakata Hospital, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Japan. 12. Department of Surgery, Okayama Saiseikai General Hospital, Okayama, Japan. 13. Division of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toho University, Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 14. Departments of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3 Asahimachi, Abenoku, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan. 15. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. 16. National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 17. Center for Advanced Treatment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Ageo, Japan.
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.
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.
Authors: M C Halls; G Berardi; F Cipriani; L Barkhatov; P Lainas; S Harris; M D'Hondt; F Rotellar; I Dagher; L Aldrighetti; R I Troisi; B Edwin; M Abu Hilal Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Go Wakabayashi; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Joseph F Buell; Hironori Kaneko; Ho Seong Han; Horacio Asbun; Nicholas OʼRourke; Minoru Tanabe; Alan J Koffron; Allan Tsung; Olivier Soubrane; Marcel Autran Machado; Brice Gayet; Roberto I Troisi; Patrick Pessaux; Ronald M Van Dam; Olivier Scatton; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Giulio Belli; Choon Hyuck David Kwon; Bjørn Edwin; Gi Hong Choi; Luca Antonio Aldrighetti; Xiujun Cai; Sean Cleary; Kuo-Hsin Chen; Michael R Schön; Atsushi Sugioka; Chung-Ngai Tang; Paulo Herman; Juan Pekolj; Xiao-Ping Chen; Ibrahim Dagher; William Jarnagin; Masakazu Yamamoto; Russell Strong; Palepu Jagannath; Chung-Mau Lo; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Norihiro Kokudo; Jeffrey Barkun; Steven M Strasberg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tan-To Cheung; Xiaoying Wang; Mikhail Efanov; Rong Liu; David Fuks; Gi-Hong Choi; Nicholas L Syn; Charing C Chong; Iswanto Sucandy; Adrian K H Chiow; Marco V Marino; Mikel Gastaca; Jae Hoon Lee; T Peter Kingham; Mathieu D'Hondt; Sung Hoon Choi; Robert P Sutcliffe; Ho-Seong Han; Chung Ngai Tang; Johann Pratschke; Roberto I Troisi; Brian K P Goh Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Timothy P DiPeri; Timothy E Newhook; Elsa M Arvide; Whitney L Dewhurst; Morgan L Bruno; Yun Shin Chun; Hop S Tran Cao; Jeffrey E Lee; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Ching-Wei D Tzeng Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 6.532
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Scott Kopetz; Elena Panettieri; Hyunsoo Hwang; Xuemei Wang; Hop S Tran Cao; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Yun Shin Chun; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Bradford J Kim; Elsa M Arvide; Cameron Gaskill; Allison N Martin; Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Yi-Ju Chiang; Whitney L Dewhurst; Teresa L Phan; Hop S Tran Cao; Yun Shin Chun; Matthew H G Katz; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Timothy E Newhook Journal: Surg Open Sci Date: 2022-05-08