Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Reliability and Validity01:29

Reliability and Validity

13.9K
Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
13.9K
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT01:25

Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT

486
Calcium-Scoring CT ScanA calcium-scoring CT scan, also known as coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan, detects calcium deposits in the coronary arteries. This test assesses the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), which can lead to cardiovascular events such as angina, heart failure, and sudden cardiac arrest.A calcium-scoring CT scan is generally recommended for individuals at intermediate risk of CAD without symptoms. It includes:Men aged 40-75 and women aged 50-75: Especially those with a...
486
Introduction to z Scores01:06

Introduction to z Scores

11.2K
A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It tells you how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
11.2K
Introduction to z Scores01:05

Introduction to z Scores

1.3K
A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It indicates how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
1.3K
z Scores and Area Under the Curve01:17

z Scores and Area Under the Curve

19.6K
z scores are the standardized values obtained after converting a normal distribution into a standard normal distribution. A z score is measured in units of the standard deviation. The z score tells you how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a z score of...
19.6K
z Scores and Unusual Values01:07

z Scores and Unusual Values

11.0K
The z score is one of the three measures of relative standing. It describes the location of a value in a dataset relative to the mean. z scores are obtained after the standardization of the values in a dataset. The z score for the mean is 0.
 This score indicates how far a value is from the mean in terms of standard deviation. For example, if a data value has a z score of +1, the researcher can infer that the particular data value is one standard deviation above the mean. If another data...
11.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Anatomical versus non-anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma - an international multicenter propensity score-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes in an international multicenter cohort.

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association·2026
Same author

External validation of the original, alternative, updated alternative, and auditing Fistula Risk Score for the prediction of post-operative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Surgical endoscopy·2026
Same author

Correction: Robotic Liver Resection for Gallbladder Cancer: Does Common Bile Duct Resection Matter? An International Propensity-Matched Study.

Journal of robotic surgery·2026
Same author

Utility of the Iwate Difficulty Scoring System for the Stratification of Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences·2026
Same author

Validation of the Southampton Difficulty Scoring System in Robotic Liver Surgery and Development of the International RoboLiver Difficulty Scoring System.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons·2026
Same author

Robotic Liver Resection for Gallbladder Cancer: Does Common Bile Duct Resection Matter? An International Propensity-Matched Study.

Journal of robotic surgery·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 2, 2026

Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Segment VII Resection with Liver Parenchymal Transection Following a Priority Approach
13:57

Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Segment VII Resection with Liver Parenchymal Transection Following a Priority Approach

Published on: May 23, 2025

1.3K

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study.

Ser Yee Lee1,2, Brian K P Goh3,4, Gholami Sepideh5

  • 1Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. lee.ser.yee@singhealth.com.sg.

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery : Official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
|November 14, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

A new scoring system objectively predicts laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) difficulty. This validated tool aids surgeons in patient selection and risk assessment for minimally invasive liver surgery.

Keywords:
Difficulty scoreLaparoscopic liver resection

More Related Videos

Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy Combined with Caudate Lobe Resection
07:22

Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy Combined with Caudate Lobe Resection

Published on: April 11, 2025

774
Application of the En Bloc Concept Combined with Anatomic Resection in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy
04:41

Application of the En Bloc Concept Combined with Anatomic Resection in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Published on: March 10, 2023

1.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 2, 2026

Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Segment VII Resection with Liver Parenchymal Transection Following a Priority Approach
13:57

Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Segment VII Resection with Liver Parenchymal Transection Following a Priority Approach

Published on: May 23, 2025

1.3K
Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy Combined with Caudate Lobe Resection
07:22

Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy Combined with Caudate Lobe Resection

Published on: April 11, 2025

774
Application of the En Bloc Concept Combined with Anatomic Resection in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy
04:41

Application of the En Bloc Concept Combined with Anatomic Resection in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Published on: March 10, 2023

1.7K

Area of Science:

  • Hepatobiliary Surgery
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Surgical Outcomes Research

Background:

  • Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) presents technical challenges distinct from open procedures.
  • Preoperative assessment of LLR difficulty is crucial for surgical planning and patient safety.
  • An objective scoring system was previously developed to quantify LLR complexity.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To externally validate a previously developed laparoscopic liver resection difficulty score (LDS).
  • To assess the LDS's ability to predict technical difficulty and guide decision-making in LLR.
  • To evaluate the LDS's utility in diverse patient populations and for preoperative risk stratification.

Main Methods:

  • A multi-institutional review of 444 patients who underwent LLR between 2006 and 2016.
  • Independent, blinded hepatobiliary surgeons calculated the LDS based on patient, tumor, and anatomical factors.
  • Validation using surrogates of case complexity, including conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, and Pringle maneuver usage.

Main Results:

  • The LDS categorized 444 LLRs into low (n=94), intermediate (n=98), and high (n=152) difficulty.
  • Conversion rates increased significantly with higher LDS (5.3% vs. 15.7% vs. 25%).
  • Higher LDS correlated with increased operative time, blood loss, and Pringle maneuver use (all p < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

  • The LDS is a robust and externally validated predictor of technical difficulty for LLR.
  • The LDS assists surgeons in patient selection based on operative experience and preoperative risk stratification.
  • This objective scoring system enhances the safety and feasibility assessment of minimally invasive liver surgery.