ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2026
Definition and Classification of Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomy (MIMH): A Literature Review and Expert Survey in the Fifth World Congress of the International Laparoscopic Liver Surgery (ILLS).
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To explore the definition of minimally invasive major hepatectomy (MIMH) through an international expert survey and to establish a difficulty-based classification. Background: The definition of MIMH remains heterogeneous. While the classical definition (≥3 segments) has been widely accepted, technically demanding procedures such as right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) and right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) are increasingly regarded as "technically major," yet consensus is lacking. Methods: A systematic review (2011-2024) identified 61 articles defining MIMH. Based on these findings, a web-based survey was distributed to 185 international liver surgeons between January and April 2025. The questionnaire evaluated expert opinions on the MIMH definition and the subjective difficulty of various laparoscopic anatomic resections (score 1-10). Results: A total of 112 surgeons responded (65% response rate). Most (89.3%) agreed that MIMH should include technically major resections, while 10.7% supported the classical definition alone. Among respondents who supported the inclusion of technically major hepatectomy, 80.0% specified RAS and RPS as technically major. Surgeons from large-volume centers (>75 minimally invasive hepatectomies per year) showed the strongest agreement (96.9%) and 93.5% identifying RAS/RPS as technically major. Subjective difficulty scores ranged from 3 for left hepatectomy to 7 for RAS, extended RPS, and central bisectionectomies, with others scoring 5-6. Conclusions: The international survey demonstrates a strong expert consensus for redefining MIMH to include technically major resections, specifically RAS and RPS. These findings provide a necessary foundation for future consensus updates and difficulty-informed clinical guidelines across minimally invasive liver surgery.
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.