Evidence Hub

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy/H67: An International Multicenter Study

Zhao J, Lu Y, Zhang W, Chua DW, Liu Q, Liu R, Pratschke J, Ratti F et al.

Annals of surgery, 2026

854 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies (L-RPSs)/H67.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections have seen an increase in uptake in recent years. Over time, challenging procedures such as L-RPS/H67 are also increasingly adopted.

METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 854 patients undergoing minimally invasive RPS in 57 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2021. There were 651 pure L-RPS and 160 robotic RPS. Sixteen outcome indicators of low-risk L-RPS cases were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. The 75th percentile of individual center medians for a given outcome indicator was set as the benchmark cutoff.

RESULTS: There were 573 L-RPS/H67 performed in 43 expert centers, of which 254 L-RPS/H67 (44.3%) cases qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, 90-day mortality, and textbook outcome after L-RPS were 350.8 minutes, 12.5%, 53.8%, 22.9%, 23.8%, 2.8%, 0%, and 4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The present study established the first global benchmark values for L-RPS/H6/7. The benchmark provided an up-to-date reference of the best achievable outcomes for surgical auditing and benchmarking.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 854 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free