ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Validation of the IWATE criteria as a laparoscopic liver resection difficulty score in a single North American cohort.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic liver resection learning curves stratified by IWATE criteria.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with sarcopenia: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- External validation of Tampa Difficulty Scoring System for robotic liver resection using Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery Registry (AMILES).Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of outcomes of robotic liver surgery using the IWATE criteria.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICG-FI) in difficult laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Association between surgical difficulty and tumor location based on subsegments of the Glisson branches in laparoscopic liver resection.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Which technical difficulty score can best predict postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive liver resections?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- A European expert consensus surgical technique description for robotic hepatectomy.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
- Perioperative impact of liver cirrhosis on robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy of high difficulty score for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Prognosis and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy for BCLC stage 0/A hepatocellular carcinoma with clinically significant portal hypertension: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Impact of complexity in minimally invasive liver surgery on enhanced recovery measures: prospective study.BJS open · 2024Observational
- Does metabolic syndrome affect perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy? A propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The difficulty grade of laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma correlates with long-term outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Influence of Child-Pugh B7 and B8/9 cirrhosis on laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Resection type is a predictor of postoperative complications in laparoscopic partial liver resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection (LLR) involves a difficult learning curve, for which multiple difficulty scores have been proposed to assist with safe adaptation. The IWATE Criteria is a 4-level difficulty score shown to correlate with conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time in Japanese and French cohorts. We set out to validate the IWATE Criteria in a North American cohort, describe the evolution of our LLR program, and analyze the IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery.
methodsPatients that underwent LLR between January 2006 and December 2019 were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Difficulty outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, EBL, operative time, and post-operative complications were analyzed according to IWATE difficulty level, both overall and between chronological eras. The IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsA total of 426 patients met inclusion criteria. Operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery increased in concordance with low to advanced IWATE difficulty. ROC analysis for conversion to open surgery demonstrated an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.694. Predictive performance was superior during the first two eras, with AUCs of 0.771 and 0.775; predictive value decreased as the LLR program gained experience, with AUCs of 0.708 and 0.551 for eras three and four.
conclusionsThis study validated the IWATE Criteria in a North American population distinct from previous Japanese and French cohorts, based on its correlation with operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery. The IWATE Criteria may be of utility for identification of LLR cases appropriate for surgeon experience, as well as determination of laparoscopic feasibility. Interval difficulty score recalibration may be warranted as surgeon perception of difficulty evolves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34031739What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.