Definition and Classification of Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomy (MIMH): A Literature Review and Expert Survey in the Fifth World Congress of the International Laparoscopic Liver Surgery (ILLS)

Objective: To explore the definition of minimally invasive major hepatectomy (MIMH) through an international expert survey and to establish a difficulty-based classification. Background: The definition of MIMH remains heterogeneous. While the classical definition (≥3 segments) has been widely accepted, technically demanding procedures such as right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) and right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) are increasingly regarded as “technically major,” yet consensus is lacking. Methods: A systematic review (2011–2024) identified 61 articles defining MIMH. Based on these findings, a web-based survey was distributed to 185 international liver surgeons between January and April 2025. The questionnaire evaluated expert opinions on the MIMH definition and the subjective difficulty of various laparoscopic anatomic resections (score 1–10). Results: A total of 112 surgeons responded (65% response rate). Most (89.3%) agreed that MIMH should include technically major resections, while 10.7% supported the classical definition alone. Among respondents who supported the inclusion of technically major hepatectomy, 80.0% specified RAS and RPS as technically major. Surgeons from large-volume centers (>75 minimally invasive hepatectomies per year) showed the strongest agreement (96.9%) and 93.5% identifying RAS/RPS as technically major. Subjective difficulty scores ranged from 3 for left hepatectomy to 7 for RAS, extended RPS, and central bisectionectomies, with others scoring 5–6. Conclusions: The international survey demonstrates a strong expert consensus for redefining MIMH to include technically major resections, specifically RAS and RPS. These findings provide a necessary foundation for future consensus updates and difficulty-informed clinical guidelines across minimally invasive liver surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Surgery Open
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000674
Primary Topic
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Definition and Classification of Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomy (MIMH): A Literature Review and Expert Survey in the Fifth World Congress of the International Laparoscopic Liver Surgery (ILLS)

Na Reum Kim, Gi Hong Choi, Gyu seong Choi, Hyuk-Soo Han et al.
Annals of Surgery Open
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
article

Definition and Classification of Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomy (MIMH): A Literature Review and Expert Survey in the Fifth World Congress of the International Laparoscopic Liver Surgery (ILLS)

Na Reum Kim, Gi Hong Choi, Gyu seong Choi, Hyuk-Soo Han, Kwang-Woong Lee, Hae Won Lee, Ki-Hun Kim, Jai Young Cho
article en

Abstract

Objective: To explore the definition of minimally invasive major hepatectomy (MIMH) through an international expert survey and to establish a difficulty-based classification. Background: The definition of MIMH remains heterogeneous. While the classical definition (≥3 segments) has been widely accepted, technically demanding procedures such as right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) and right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) are increasingly regarded as “technically major,” yet consensus is lacking. Methods: A systematic review (2011–2024) identified 61 articles defining MIMH. Based on these findings, a web-based survey was distributed to 185 international liver surgeons between January and April 2025. The questionnaire evaluated expert opinions on the MIMH definition and the subjective difficulty of various laparoscopic anatomic resections (score 1–10). Results: A total of 112 surgeons responded (65% response rate). Most (89.3%) agreed that MIMH should include technically major resections, while 10.7% supported the classical definition alone. Among respondents who supported the inclusion of technically major hepatectomy, 80.0% specified RAS and RPS as technically major. Surgeons from large-volume centers (>75 minimally invasive hepatectomies per year) showed the strongest agreement (96.9%) and 93.5% identifying RAS/RPS as technically major. Subjective difficulty scores ranged from 3 for left hepatectomy to 7 for RAS, extended RPS, and central bisectionectomies, with others scoring 5–6. Conclusions: The international survey demonstrates a strong expert consensus for redefining MIMH to include technically major resections, specifically RAS and RPS. These findings provide a necessary foundation for future consensus updates and difficulty-informed clinical guidelines across minimally invasive liver surgery.

Annals of Surgery OpenVol. 7(2)
Seoul National University (KR), Yonsei University (KR), Asan Medical Center (KR), Samsung Medical Center (KR), Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (KR), University of Ulsan (KR), Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.