File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Defining global benchmarks for laparoscopic liver resections: an international multicenter study

TitleDefining global benchmarks for laparoscopic liver resections: an international multicenter study
Authors
Keywordsbenchmark
global
hepatectomy
laparoscopic liver resection
minimally invasive
quality assessment
Issue Date1-Apr-2023
PublisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Citation
Annals of Surgery, 2023, v. 277, n. 4, p. e839-e848 How to Cite?
Abstract

Objective: 

To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR).

Background: 

There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR.

Methods: 

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs.

Results: 

There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively.

Conclusions: 

This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the “best achievable” results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339410
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 7.5
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.729
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGoh, Brian KP-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Ho-Seong-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Kuo-Hsin-
dc.contributor.authorChua, Darren W-
dc.contributor.authorChan, Chung-Yip-
dc.contributor.authorCipriani, Federica-
dc.contributor.authorAghayan, Davit L-
dc.contributor.authorFretland, Asmund A-
dc.contributor.authorSijberden, Jasper-
dc.contributor.authorD’Silva, Mizelle-
dc.contributor.authorSiow, Tiing Foong-
dc.contributor.authorKato, Yutaro-
dc.contributor.authorLim, Chetana-
dc.contributor.authorNghia, Phan Phuoc-
dc.contributor.authorHerman, Paulo-
dc.contributor.authorMarino, Marco V-
dc.contributor.authorMazzaferro, Vincenzo-
dc.contributor.authorChiow, Adrian KH-
dc.contributor.authorSucandy, Iswanto-
dc.contributor.authorIvanecz, Arpad-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Sung Hoon-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jae Hoon-
dc.contributor.authorGastaca, Mikel-
dc.contributor.authorVivarelli, Marco-
dc.contributor.authorGiuliante, Felice-
dc.contributor.authorRuzzenente, Andrea-
dc.contributor.authorYong, Chee-Chien-
dc.contributor.authorYin, Mengqui-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Zewei-
dc.contributor.authorFondevila, Constantino-
dc.contributor.authorEfanov, Mikhail-
dc.contributor.authorRotellar, Fernando-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Gi-Hong-
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Ricardo R-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xiaoying-
dc.contributor.authorSutcliffe, Robert P-
dc.contributor.authorPratschke, Johann-
dc.contributor.authorLai, Eric-
dc.contributor.authorChong, Charing C-
dc.contributor.authorD’Hondt, Mathieu-
dc.contributor.authorMonden, Kazuteru-
dc.contributor.authorLopez-Ben, Santiago-
dc.contributor.authorCoelho, Fabricio F-
dc.contributor.authorKingham, Thomas Peter-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Rong-
dc.contributor.authorLong, Tran Cong duy-
dc.contributor.authorFerrero, Alessandro-
dc.contributor.authorSandri, Giovanni B Levi-
dc.contributor.authorSaleh, Mansour-
dc.contributor.authorCherqui, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorScatton, Olivier-
dc.contributor.authorSoubrane, Olivier-
dc.contributor.authorWakabayashi, Go-
dc.contributor.authorTroisi, Roberto I-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Tan-To-
dc.contributor.authorSugioka, Atsushi-
dc.contributor.authorHilal, Mohammad Abu-
dc.contributor.authorFuks, David-
dc.contributor.authorEdwin, Bjørn-
dc.contributor.authorAldrighetti, Luca-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:36:24Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:36:24Z-
dc.date.issued2023-04-01-
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Surgery, 2023, v. 277, n. 4, p. e839-e848-
dc.identifier.issn0003-4932-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339410-
dc.description.abstract<h3>Objective: </h3><p>To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR).</p><h3>Background: </h3><p>There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR.</p><h3>Methods: </h3><p>This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs.</p><h3>Results: </h3><p>There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively.</p><h3>Conclusions: </h3><p>This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the “best achievable” results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkins-
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Surgery-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectbenchmark-
dc.subjectglobal-
dc.subjecthepatectomy-
dc.subjectlaparoscopic liver resection-
dc.subjectminimally invasive-
dc.subjectquality assessment-
dc.titleDefining global benchmarks for laparoscopic liver resections: an international multicenter study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SLA.0000000000005530-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85149816720-
dc.identifier.volume277-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spagee839-
dc.identifier.epagee848-
dc.identifier.eissn1528-1140-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000970519000040-
dc.identifier.issnl0003-4932-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats