Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 21, 2026

Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Segment VII Resection with Liver Parenchymal Transection Following a Priority Approach
Published on: May 23, 2025
Validation and performance of three-level procedure-based classification for laparoscopic liver resection
Yoshikuni Kawaguchi1,2, Shogo Tanaka3, David Fuks4
1Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. yokawaguchi-tky@umin.ac.jp.
Background:
A procedure-based laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) classification (IMM classification) stratified 11 different LLR procedures into 3 grades. IMM classification assessed the difficulty of LLR differently than an index-based LLR classification (IWATE criteria), which scored each procedure on an index scale of 12. We validated the difference of 3 IMM grades using an external cohort, evaluated the IMM classification using the scores of the IWATE criteria, and compared the performance of IMM classification with the IWATE criteria and the minor/major classification.
Methods:
Patients undergoing LLR without simultaneous procedures were selected from a prospectively maintained database at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM cohort) and from the database of 43 Japanese institutions (JMI cohort). Surgical and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to the 3 IMM grades using the JMI cohort. The 11 LLR procedures included in the IMM classification were scored according to the IWATE criteria. The area under the curves (AUCs) for surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results:
In the JMI (n = 1867) cohort, operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, and major complication rate were significantly associated with a stepwise increase in grades from I to III (all, P < 0.001). In the IMM (n = 433) and JMI cohorts, IMM grades I, II, and III corresponded to three low-scoring, two intermediate-scoring, and six high-scoring LLR procedures as per the IWATE criteria, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation among the IMM grades were significantly different: 3.7 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 7.5 ± 1.7 (grade II) versus 10.2 ± 1.0 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the IMM cohort and 3.6 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 6.7 ± 1.5 (grade II) versus 9.3 ± 1.4 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the JMI cohort. The AUCs for surgical and postoperative outcomes are higher for the 3-level IMM classification than for the minor/major classification.
Conclusions:
The difference of 3 IMM grades with respect to surgical and postoperative outcomes was validated using an external cohort. The 3-level procedure-based IMM classification was in accordance with the index-based IWATE criteria. The IMM classification performed better than the minor/major classification for stratifying LLR procedures.
Related Concept Videos
Reliability and Validity
Classification of Titrimetric Analysis Based on Reaction Types
Titrations between an acid and a base lead to neutralization reactions that form...
Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications
Leveling Effect and Non-Aqueous Acid-Base Solutions
The Leveling Effect of a Solvent
A generic acid (HA) reacts with the generic base (B-) to yield the corresponding conjugate base (A-) and conjugate acid (HB):
Classification of Neurotransmitters
Classification of Leukocytes
Neutrophils are the most abundant type of granular leukocytes, comprising 50-70% of all leukocytes. They feature small, evenly distributed granules and a...

