ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Which technical difficulty score can best predict postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive liver resections?
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A structured, indicator-driven quality improvement cycle is associated with improved adherence and outcomes after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Glisson's capsule invasion as a risk factor of multifocal intrahepatic recurrence after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective single-center cohort study.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess technical difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) in a large well-characterized cohort of low to high difficulty LLR.
methodsPatients undergoing LLR and open liver resection (OLS) (2007-2022) at Massachusetts General Hospital were included. Patients were classified according to the technical difficulty scores Ban difficulty score, IWATE criteria, Hasegawa score, IMM score, and Southhampton score (SHH) and calibration of these scores in predicting postoperative outcome parameters was assessed.
results301 patients underwent LLR. Median age was 59 years and 58.5% of the patients were female. Median lesion size was 42.2 mm, median operative time was 197.7 min, and median estimated blood loss was 400.5 ml. According to the different scoring systems, 18.9% (SHH) to 52.2% (IWATE) of the LLR were high difficulty. Overall intraoperative events according to the modified Satava classification grade II (6.6%) and grade III (2.7%) were low as was postoperative 90 days major morbidity (5.3%) and mortality (1.0%). The respective scores' calibration for predicting non-textbook outcomes, intraoperative events, operative time, major postoperative morbidity, blood transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay was moderate to good for the respective scores and best for the IWATE criteria. DISCUSSION: Even high technical difficulty LLR can be performed with low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. The scores evaluated performed well in predicting major liver surgery outome parameters. Among the different difficulty scoring systems, the IWATE criteria performed best.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.