4.5 Article

Perceived Complexity of Various Liver Resections: Results of a Survey of Experts with Development of a Complexity Score and Classification

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.09.017

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA091842] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Liver resections have classically been distinguished as minor or major based on the number of segments removed. However, it is clear that the number of segments alone does not convey the complexity of a resection. To date, no study has formally assessed the complexity of various anatomic liver resections. STUDY DESIGN: A 4-question survey was administered to 135 expert liver surgeons in 14 countries. The first 3 questions related to the country in which the surgeon was practicing and the surgeon's experience. In the fourth question, the experts were asked to rate the difficulty of various open, anatomic liver resections on a scale of 1 to 10. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 135 (48.9%) surgeons responded to the survey. Twelve procedures were rated. The lowest mean score of 1.37-indicating least difficulty-was given to peripheral wedge resection. Left trisectionectomy with caudate resection was deemed most difficult, with a score of 8.28. The mean scores for the 2 procedures perceived as least difficult-peripheral wedge resection and left lateral sectionectomy-were lower than the mean scores of all the rest of the procedures at a highly statistically significant level (p < 0.0001). The 4 procedures with the highest scores shared the common attribute that they involved the right intersectional plane. CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the first quantitative assessment of the perceived difficulty of a variety of liver resections. The complexity scores generated allow for separation of liver resections into 3 categories of complexity (low complexity, medium complexity, and high complexity) on a quantitative basis. ((C) 2015 by the American College of Surgeons)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据