[Textbook outcome for liver resection. Survey of respondents in national centers].

Q4 Medicine
M G Efanov, M A Sudakov, V V Tsvirkun, I E Khatkov
{"title":"[Textbook outcome for liver resection. Survey of respondents in national centers].","authors":"M G Efanov, M A Sudakov, V V Tsvirkun, I E Khatkov","doi":"10.17116/hirurgia20250415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a domestic model of the textbook outcome (TO) for liver resection and to compare it with the European model.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We surveyed 73 respondents from Russian centers. A list of parameters was sent to respondents by email. The voting result was positive when 70% consolidation of opinions was achieved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering Russian and European surveys, we formed TO models including 8 criteria for laparoscopic resection and 7 criteria for open resection. In Russian survey, 70% agreement was reached on 6 criteria for both types of resection. Two additional criteria were included In Russian TO as the most consolidated although they did not reach 70% threshold. Differences between European and Russian models include no redo intervention after resection (endoscopic or percutaneous), acceptability of grade A bile leakage (ISGLS), and no liver failure criterion in European TO. Other positions were the same. The most questionable criterion was duration of in-hospital treatment after liver resections. Both models include the most popular judgments without 70% consolidation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TO models for liver resection demonstrated similar judgments of surveyed respondent In Russia and Europe. Nevertheless, certain differences prompt to further evaluation of some criteria, as well as TO validation in domestic practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":35986,"journal":{"name":"Khirurgiya","volume":" 4","pages":"5-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Khirurgiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia20250415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To develop a domestic model of the textbook outcome (TO) for liver resection and to compare it with the European model.

Material and methods: We surveyed 73 respondents from Russian centers. A list of parameters was sent to respondents by email. The voting result was positive when 70% consolidation of opinions was achieved.

Results: Considering Russian and European surveys, we formed TO models including 8 criteria for laparoscopic resection and 7 criteria for open resection. In Russian survey, 70% agreement was reached on 6 criteria for both types of resection. Two additional criteria were included In Russian TO as the most consolidated although they did not reach 70% threshold. Differences between European and Russian models include no redo intervention after resection (endoscopic or percutaneous), acceptability of grade A bile leakage (ISGLS), and no liver failure criterion in European TO. Other positions were the same. The most questionable criterion was duration of in-hospital treatment after liver resections. Both models include the most popular judgments without 70% consolidation.

Conclusion: TO models for liver resection demonstrated similar judgments of surveyed respondent In Russia and Europe. Nevertheless, certain differences prompt to further evaluation of some criteria, as well as TO validation in domestic practice.

[标准的肝切除结果。调查对象在全国中心]。
目的:建立国内肝切除术教科书预后模型,并与欧洲模型进行比较。材料和方法:我们调查了来自俄罗斯中心的73名受访者。一份参数列表通过电子邮件发送给受访者。当意见整合率达到70%时,投票结果是肯定的。结果:结合俄罗斯和欧洲的调查,我们形成了包括腹腔镜切除8个标准和开放切除7个标准的TO模型。在俄罗斯的调查中,两种切除的6项标准的一致性达到70%。另外两项标准被纳入俄罗斯TO,尽管它们没有达到70%的门槛。欧洲和俄罗斯模型之间的差异包括切除后无重做干预(内镜或经皮),A级胆漏(ISGLS)的可接受性,以及欧洲TO无肝功能衰竭标准。其他立场也一样。最值得怀疑的标准是肝切除术后的住院治疗时间。这两种模型都包含了没有70%整合的最受欢迎的判断。结论:俄罗斯和欧洲的被调查者对肝切除的TO模型表现出相似的判断。然而,某些差异促使对某些标准进行进一步评估,并在国内实践中对其进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Khirurgiya
Khirurgiya Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
161
期刊介绍: Хирургия отдельных областей сердце, сосуды легкие пищевод молочная железа желудок и двенадцатиперстная кишка кишечник желчевыводящие пути печень
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信