Use and Dissemination of the Brisbane 2000 Nomenclature of Liver Anatomy and Resections

Strasberg, Steven M.; Phillips, Carolyn

doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31825a01f6

Cited by 220 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature search was conducted according to PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses) recommendations (Figure 2) [38] . Definitions and nomenclature for liver resections was based on the 2000 IHPBA Brisbane terminology [15,16] . Namely, resection of segments 5 and 8 was named right anterior sectionectomy, while resection of segments 4a and 4b was named left medial sectionectomy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the perpetual lack of donor organs, long waiting time, along with other limitations of liver transplantation, anatomical parenchymal-preserving procedures have an increasing role in treatment of primary and secondary liver malignancies [14] . Central hepatectomy (CH), also known as mesohepatectomy, was first performed for gallbladder cancer in 1972 and is used to describe the operative procedure to resect segments 4, 5, 8 ± 1 ( Figure 1) [15][16][17][18][19][20] . Other synonymous terms used in the literature include central hepatic resection, middle hepatectomy, middle hepatic lobectomy, central bisegmentectomy and central bisectionectomy [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of the technical term used, the principle behind this procedure is the same and was not commonly carried out till more recently. In the Brisbane Terminology of Liver Anatomy and Resections by the International Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (IHPBA) in 2000, there was no definition of this surgical procedure [15,16] . The theoretical risks of CH compared to traditional major liver resections such as extended-or hemihepatectomy are obvious.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Central hepatectomy for centrally located malignant liver tumors: A systematic review

Lee¹

2014

WJH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To study whether central hepatectomy (CH) can achieve similar overall patient survival and disease-free survival rates as conventional major hepatectomies or not. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE for articles published from January 1983 to June 2013 to evaluate the evidence for and against CH in the management of central hepatic malignancies and to compare the perioperative variables and outcomes of CH to lobar/extended hemihepatectomy. RESULTS:A total of 895 patients were included from 21 relevant studies. Most of these patients who underwent CH were a sub-cohort of larger liver resection studies. Only 4 studies directly compared Central vs hemi-/extended hepatectomies. The range of operative time for CH was reported to be 115 to 627 min and Pringle's maneuver was used for vascular control in the majority of studies. The mean intraoperative blood loss during CH ranged from 380 to 2450 mL. The reported morbidity rates ranged from 5.1% to 61.1%, the most common surgical complication was bile leakage and the most common cause of mortality was liver failure. Mortality ranged from 0.0% to 7.1% with an overall mortality of 2.3% following CH. The 1-year overall survival (OS) for patients underwent CH for hepatocellular carcinoma ranged from 67% to 94%; with the 3-year and 5-year OS having a reported range of 44% to 66.8%, and 31.7% to 66.8% respectively. CONCLUSION:Based on current literature, CH is a promising option for anatomical parenchymal-preserving procedure in patients with centrally located liver malignancies; it appears to be safe and comparable in both perioperative, early and long term outcomes when compared to patients undergoing hemi-/extended hepatectomy. More prospective studies are awaited to further define its role.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Central hepatectomy for centrally located malignant liver tumors: A systematic review

Lee¹

2014

WJH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of resected segments was defined by the type of surgical resection according to the Brisbane classification. 12 In case of multiple resections, the number of segments was added. Postoperative morbidity was defined as the occurrence of any complication within 90 days after liver resection.…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: A propensity score matching analysis

Méméo

Association

2018

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Extent of liver resection was classified according to the Brisbane 2000 terminology 18. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were defined as any complication or death within 90 days, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy is suitable as a first step in pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Hasegawa

Nitta

Takahara

et al. 2018

Annals of Gastroent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimAs a procedure, major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains in the exploration phase. Previous studies have assessed major LLR en bloc, including hepatectomies of varying complexities; however, the number of segments alone does not convey the complexity of a resection. This study aimed to assess operative outcomes of LLR procedures with more than one sectionectomy, and to identify the best procedure as a first step when learning to carry out major LLR in order to make LLR a safer, more widely used procedure.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective review of the operative outcomes of 120 consecutive patients who underwent pure LLR with more than one sectionectomy. Operative outcomes were compared according to the complexity classification recently published, and the learning curve for each LLR procedure was assessed and compared.ResultsOperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, and the comprehensive complication index, were significantly stratified according to complexity. There were significant differences in operative outcomes among the medium complexity procedures. The operative time for left hemihepatectomy was the shortest, and the amount of blood loss was the lowest among the medium complexity LLR. Operative times for left hemihepatectomy shortened significantly with time and experience (r = −0.639), and the slope of the learning curve was steeper than for right hemihepatectomy and right posterior sectionectomy.ConclusionLeft hemihepatectomy is suitable as a first step in pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy and, given its safety and rapid learning curve for surgeons, it could become the gold standard procedure.

show abstract

Use and Dissemination of the Brisbane 2000 Nomenclature of Liver Anatomy and Resections

Abstract: The Brisbane terminology is being adopted worldwide but its adoption is still incomplete.

Cited by 220 publications

References 1 publication

Central hepatectomy for centrally located malignant liver tumors: A systematic review

Central hepatectomy for centrally located malignant liver tumors: A systematic review

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: A propensity score matching analysis

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy is suitable as a first step in pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About