Risk score to predict biliary leakage after elective liver resection. BJS 2018; 105: 128-139.
Published: 13th November 2017
Authors: K. Mohkam, O. Farges, E. Vibert, O. Soubrane, R. Adam, F.‐R. Pruvot et al.
Biliary leakage remains a major cause of morbidity after liver resection. Previous prognostic studies of posthepatectomy biliary leakage (PHBL) lacked power, population homogeneity, and model validation. The present study aimed to develop a risk score for predicting severe PHBL.
In this multicentre observational study, patients who underwent liver resection without hepaticojejunostomy in one of nine tertiary centres between 2012 and 2015 were randomly assigned to a development or validation cohort in a 2 : 1 ratio. A model predicting severe PHBL (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C) was developed and further validated.
A total of 2218 procedures were included. PHBL of any severity and severe PHBL occurred in 141 (6·4 per cent) and 92 (4·1 per cent) patients respectively. In the development cohort (1475 patients), multivariable analysis identified blood loss of at least 500 ml, liver remnant ischaemia time 45 min or more, anatomical resection including segment VIII, transection along the right aspect of the left intersectional plane, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as predictors of severe PHBL. A risk score (ranging from 0 to 5) was built using the development cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·85) and tested successfully in the validation cohort (AUROC 0·70, 0·60 to 0·80). A score of at least 3 predicted an increase in severe PHBL (19·4
The present risk score reliably predicts severe PHBL. It represents a multi‐institutionally validated prognostic tool that can be used to identify a subset of patients at high risk of severe PHBL after elective hepatectomy.Read more
You may also be interested in
Authors: M. Gelli, M. A. Allard, O. Farges, C. Paugam‐Burtz, J. Y. Mabrut, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: No increased risk
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Meta‐analysis of mortality in patients with high‐risk intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms under observation.
Authors: G. Vanella, S. Crippa, L. Archibugi, P. G. Arcidiacono, G. Delle Fave, M. Falconi et al.
Notes: Low disease‐related mortality
Authors: P. Studer, T. Horn, A. Haynes, D. Candinas, V. M. Banz
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy versus observation in resected bile duct cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 192-202.
Authors: T. Ebata, S. Hirano, M. Konishi, K. Uesaka, Y. Tsuchiya, M. Ohtsuka et al.
Notes: No advantage
Authors: M. A. Stammes, S. L. Bugby, T. Porta, K. Pierzchalski, T. Devling, C. Otto et al.
Notes: Visible results
Defining the molecular pathology of pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. BJS 2018; 105: e183-e191.
Authors: S. B. Dreyer, N. B. Jamieson, R. Upstill‐Goddard, P. J. Bailey, C. J. McKay, A. V. Biankin et al.
Notes: Worse genetic profile in tail
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 48-57.
Authors: Y. Senda, Y. Shimizu, S. Natsume, S. Ito, K. Komori, T. Abe et al.
Notes: No difference found
Early versus late recurrence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after resection with curative intent.
Authors: X.‐F. Zhang, E. W. Beal, F. Bagante, J. Chakedis, M. Weiss, I. Popescu et al.
Notes: Early recurrence is bad news
Growth rates of pulmonary metastases after liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 295-301.
Authors: H. Grut, S. Solberg, T. Seierstad, M. E. Revheim, T. S. Egge, S. G. Larsen et al.
Notes: Immunosuppression may not accelerate growth