Recent trends in postoperative mortality after liver resection- A systemic review and metanalysis of studies published in last 5 years and metaregression of various factors affecting 90 days mortality
========================================================================================================================================================================================================

* Bhavin Vasavada
* Hardik Patel

## Abstract

**Aim** The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to analyse 90 days mortality after liver resection, and also study various factors associated with mortality via univariate and multivariate metaregression.

**Methods** PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, google scholar, web of science with keywords like ‘liver resection”; “mortality”;” hepatectomy”. Weighted percentage 90 days mortalities were analysed. univariate metaregression was done by DerSimonian-Liard methods. Major hepatectomy, open surgery, cirrhotic livers, blood loss, hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis were taken as moderators in metaregression analysis. We decided to enter all co-variants in multivariate model to look for mixed effects. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 test, with values of 25%, 50% and 75% indicating low, moderate and high degrees of heterogeneity. Cohort studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess for the risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Funnel plot asymmetry was evaluated by Egger’s test.

**Results** Total 29931 patients’ data who underwent liver resections for various etiologies were pooled from 41 studied included1257 patients died within 90 days post operatively. Weighted 90 days mortality was 3.6% (95% C.I 2.8% −4.4%). However, heterogeneity of the analysis was high with I2 94.625%.(p<0.001). We analysed various covariates like major hepatectomy, Age of the patient, blood loss, open surgery, liver resections done for hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastasis and cirrhotic liver to check for their association with heterogeneity in the analysis and hence 90 days mortality. On univariate metaregression analysis major hepatectomy (p<0.001), Open hepatectomy (p<0.001), blood loss (p=0.002) was associated with heterogeneity in the analysis and 90 days mortality. On multivariate metaregression Major hepatectomy(p=0.003) and Open surgery (p=0.012) was independently associated with higher 90 days mortality, and liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis was independently associated with lesser 90 days mortality (z= −4.11,p<0.01). Residual heterogeneity after all factor multivariate metaregression model was none (I2=0,Tau2=0, H2=1) and nonsignificant (p=0.49).

**Conclusion** Major hepatectomy, open hepatectomy, and cirrhotic background is associated with higher mortality rates and colorectal liver metastasis is associated with lower peri operative mortality rates.

Key words
*   Liver resection
*   90-day mortality
*   hepatectomy
*   perioperative outcomes
*   hepatocellular carcinoma

## Introduction

Liver resection is now established curative treatment for various malignant and benign liver pathology. Currently Hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis is the most common indications for liver surgery as well as primary and secondary liver malignancies. [1,2].

Perioperative care and surgical techniques for liver resections have improved significantly in past few years, resulting in improved perioperative outcomes. However, despite improvements liver resections are associated with variable outcomes according to centres, countries and surgeons and mortality and morbidity rates after this demanding surgery are still high and variable. [3,4,5]. There is also lack of uniformity in the literature regarding description of post-operative mortality with some mention in hospital mortality, some 30 days mortality and some 90 days mortality.

Recently published study by Filmann et al.[6] suggested higher In hospital mortality rate across the Germany. However due to lack of data they also could not report actual 90 days mortality data and mentioned in hospital mortality rates. However, their findings raised concerns about under reporting of mortality data in scientific community.

Aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to analyse 90 days mortality after liver resection, and study various factors associated with mortality via univariate and multivariate metaregression.

## Material and Methods

The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and MOOSE guidelines. [7,8]. We conducted literature search as described by Gossen et al. [9]. PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, google scholar, web of science with keywords like ‘liver resection”; “mortality”;” hepatectomy”. Two independent authors extracted the data (B.V and H.P). We evaluated last studies published in last 5 years to see recent trends in 90 days mortality. In case of disagreements decision reached on basis of discussions.

### Definitions

Major hepatectomy was defined as resection of more than or equal to 3 segments. Post-operative mortality was defined as any mortality within 90 days post-operative period.

### Statistical Analysis

The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and JASP Team (2020). JASP (Version 0.14.1)(University of Amsterdam). Weighted percentage 90 days mortalities with 95% confidence intervals were used. Univariate metaregression was done by DerSimonian-Liard methods. Major hepatectomy, open surgery, cirrhotic livers, blood loss, hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis were taken as co-variates in metaregression analysis to study their association heterogeneity of the meta-analysis and 90 days mortality. Factors with p value less than 0.05 were entered in multivariate metaregression model and then we decided to check for residual heterogeneity, if residual heterogeneity is still significant, we decided to enter all co-variants in multivariate model to look for mixed effects. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 test, with values of 25%, 50% and 75% indicating low, moderate and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively and assessed p value for significance of heterogeneity and tau2 and H2 value [10]. The random effects model was used in meta-analysis.

### Assessment of Bias

Cohort studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess for the risk of bias [11,12] Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Funnel plot asymmetry was evaluated by Egger’s test.

### Inclusion and Exclusion criteria for studies

#### Inclusion criteria

*   · Studies with full texts

*   · Studies published in last 5 years.

*   · Studies mentioning 90 days mortality rates.

*   · Studies which evaluated liver resections for different etiologies.

*   · Studies published in last 5 years.

*   · English language studies.

#### Exclusion criteria

*   · Studies which were not fulfilling above criteria.

*   · Duplicate studies.

*   · Studies which included analysis of liver resection for single etiology.

## Results

### Data extraction, study characteristics and quality assessment

‘PUBMED’, ‘SCOPUS’, and ‘EMBASE’ databases were searched using keywords and the search strategy described above. Initially 4246 studies published in last 5 years were screened from above search strategy and 23 additional records were screened from references of above studies. After removing duplicates 3343 studies screened again. 3265 studies excluded meeting the exclusion criteria. 78 full text articles were evaluated. 36 full texts article removed as they did not mention 90 days mortality and instead mentioned in hospital, perioperative or 30 days post-operative mortality.41 studies included in final qualitative and quantitative analysis. [Figure 1 Prisma flow chart]. Risk of bias summary is mentioned in Figure 2. Study characteristics are mentioned in table 1. All the studies included are either retrospective studies or propensity score matched analysis from retrospective data. In propensity score matched analysis unmatched total data were analysed for 90 days mortality, so effectively all the data were retrospective.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/T1)

Table 1: 
Study Characteristics

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/T2)

Table 2: 
Univariate and Multivariate meta regression analysis.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F1)

Figure 1. 
Prisma flow chart.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F2)

Figure 2. 
Risk of Bias summary

### Weighted 90 days mortality

Total 29931 patients’ data who underwent liver resections for various etiologies were pooled from 41 studied included.[13-52].1257 patients died within 90 days post operatively. Weighted 90 days mortality was 3.6% with 95% confidence interval between 2.8% to 4.4%. [Figure 3 Forest plot]. However, heterogeneity of the analysis was high with I2 94.625%, tau2 0.001, and Q value of 744.188. P value of heterogeneity was highly significant (p<0.001).

![Figure3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F3)

### Publication Bias

Figure 4 mentioned significant publication bias. Egger’s test showed significant publication bias with p value of <0.001.

![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F4)

Figure 4. 
Funnel Plot for publication bias. (Egger’s test showed significant publication bias, p <0.001).

### Metaregression analysis

We analysed various covariates like major hepatectomy, Age of the patient, blood loss, open surgery, liver resections done for hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastasis and cirrhotic liver to check for their association with heterogeneity in the analysis and hence 90 days mortality.

On univariate metaregression analysis major hepatectomy (p<0.001), Open hepatectomy (p<0.001), blood loss (p=0.002) were associated with heterogeneity in the analysis and 90 days mortality. On multivariate metaregression model after entering above 3 factors which were significant in univariate model, blood loss was significantly associated with heterogeneity and 90 days mortality. (p value= 0.03). However, residual heterogeneity was still highly significant with I275.74% and p <0.001. So, we entered all the factors in multivariate model. On all covariates multivariate model, Major hepatectomy(p=0.003) and Open surgery (p=0.012) was independently associated with higher 90 days mortality, and liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis was independently associated with lesser 90 days mortality (z= −4.11,p<0.01). Residual heterogeneity after all factor multivariate metaregression model was none (I2=0,Tau2=0, H2=1) and nonsignificant (p=0.49) suggesting homogeneity of the findings. However only 10 studies mentioned all the factors. Metaregression forest plots for each parameters) is mentioned in supplement Figure 1 and multivariate forest plot (All Factors) mentioned in Figure 5. Funnel plot of studies mentioned all the factors and entered in multivariate model showed no publication bias. (p= 0.285 by eggers’ test). [Figure 6]. Normal Q-Q plot after meta-regression analysis is shown in Figure 7.

![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F5)

Figure 5. 
Forest plot multivariate metaregression. (grey squares is expected effect size with regard to covariate)

![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F6)

Figure 6. 
Funnel plot of publication bias for studies containing all the covariate in metaregression. (p=0.285 by egger’s test)

![Figure 7.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.26.21254407/F7)

Figure 7. 
Normal Q-Q plot.

## Discussion

Liver resection is a curative surgery for many benign and malignant disorders, with most common indications are hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis. Liver resection was historically associated with very high morbidity and mortality, which has now decreased significantly due to improved surgical and anaesthetic technique and improved perioperative and critical care. However, it is still considered to be associated with high mortality. Particularly recent study by Filmann et al [6],showed very high 30 days mortality after liver resection in Germany, they also raised concerns about possible selection and reporting bias in mortality studies.

There is also wide variation in defining peri/post-operative mortality in liver surgeries with some centres reporting in hospital mortality, some centres reporting 30 days and some centres reports 90 days mortality. Mayo et al [53] described that 90 days after surgery should be the standard criteria for defining peri/post-operative mortality. There is also wide regional variations in indications of liver resections. In Asian countries most common indication is hepatocellular carcinoma [54] while in European countries most common indications is colorectal metastasis, which can also be reason of variable mortality following liver resection. Our Aim in conducting this systemic review and prevalence meta-analysis to study weighted post-operative mortality rates after liver resections. We also aimed to look at the heterogeneity of the analysis and publication bias. We also did metaregression analysis for various factor affecting mortality like Major or minor hepatectomy, blood loss, age of the patient, open vs laparoscopic liver resections, cirrhotic background of the liver and etiologies for resections like hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastasis in study published in last 5 year to look for recent trends. As we wanted to analyse 90 days mortality as standard definitions we excluded all the studies which did not mention 90 days mortality and excluded studies which studied only hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastasis and included studies which analysed mortality rates in liver resections performed for various etiologies.

As shown in Figure 3 weighted 90 days mortality after liver resection was 3.6% with 95% confidence interval between 2.8%- 4.4%. However, heterogeneity was significantly high with I2=94.63% and p value <0.001. Suggesting various Moderators was responsible for this variable effect sizes in different studies. There was also significant publication bias as shown in funnel plot [Figure 4], and egger’s test was also significantly positive for publication bias.

Therefor we evaluated various factors affecting mortality like age, major hepatectomy, open surgery, blood loss, cirrhotic background, liver resection for hepatocellular carcinomas and colorectal liver metaanalysis.

In univariate metaregression analysis major hepatectomy, open surgery and blood loss was significantly associated with heterogeneity of analysis. When we initially performed metaregression analysis including factors those were significant in univariate analysis, residual heterogeneity of the analysis was still highly significant suggesting various other factors or mixed effect of various factors on mortality was responsible for heterogeneity. So to evaluate that we entered all the factors available in the metaregression model. That showed no residual heterogeneity with I2=0, Tau2=0 and H2 =1 with nonsignificant p value of the heterogeneity (p=0.49) suggesting mixed effect of all the factors was responsible for variable effect size and mortality in studies. In multivariate metaregression with all the moderators open hepatectomy (p=0.012), Major hepatectomy (p=0.003), and cirrhotic liver (p=0.003) was independently associated with higher mortality and colorectal metastasis was independently associated with lower 90 days mortality. (p<0.0001, z = −4.116). Elimination of residual heterogeneity after metaregression suggested that above factors was mainly responsible for variable outcomes across the centres. Q-Q plot also suggested lack of heterogeneity after metaregression. [Figure 7].

Limitations of the meta-analysis were some large number studies had to be excluded due to lack of 90 days mortality data for example filmann et al [6] study which evaluated 30 days mortality rate in Germany. Also, we could not take in account centre volume and surgeon’s experience. Another limitations was only 10 studies mentioned all the moderators however, number of study was adequate to conduct metaregression analysis.

However, to our knowledge this is the first meta-analysis evaluated weighted 90 days mortality rates and evaluated various factors responsible for heterogeneity and lack of residual heterogeneity after metaregression proved their effects on variable mortality rates across the centres.

In conclusion reporting of perioperative mortality rates should be standardised as 90 days mortality rates and, they should be evaluated in context of various moderators described above. Major hepatectomy, open hepatectomy, and cirrhotic background is associated with higher mortality rates and colorectal liver metastasis is associated with lower peri operative mortality rates compared to other etiologies like hepatocellular carcinoma.

## Supporting information

supplement file 1 [[supplements/254407_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

data will be made available on demand.

## Footnotes

*   Conflict of Interests: None

*   Funding disclosure: nothing to disclose.

*   Received March 26, 2021.
*   Revision received March 26, 2021.
*   Accepted March 29, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Wallace MC, Preen D, Jeffrey GP et al. (2015) The evolving epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: a global perspective. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(6):765–779.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1586/17474124.2015.1028363&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25827821&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2F2021.03.26.21254407.atom) 

2.  2.Menfredi S, Lepage C, Hatem C et al. (2006) Epidemiology and management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 244(2):254.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.sla.0000217629.94941.cf&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16858188&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2F2021.03.26.21254407.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239358700012&link_type=ISI) 

3.  3.Gilg S, Sandström P, Rizell M et al. (2018) The impact of post hepatectomy liver failure on mortality: a population-based study. Scand J Gastroenterol 25:1–5
    
    

4.  4.Ray S, Mehta NN, Golhar A et al. (2018) Post hepatectomy liver failure–A comprehensive review of current concepts and controversies. Ann Med Surg 34:4–10.
    
    

5.  5.Kauffmann R, Fong Y (2014) Post-hepatectomy liver failure. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 3(5):238.
    
    

6.  6.Filmann N, Walter D, Schadde E, et al. Mortality after liver surgery in Germany. Br J Surg. 2019;106(11):1523–1529.
    
    

7.  7.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzMzkvanVsMjFfMS9iMjcwMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzAzLzI5LzIwMjEuMDMuMjYuMjEyNTQ0MDcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

8.  8.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.283.15.2008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10789670&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2F2021.03.26.21254407.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000086436600037&link_type=ISI) 

9.  9.Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, et al. Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403(1):119–129.
    
    

10. 10.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjcvNzQxNC81NTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMy8yOS8yMDIxLjAzLjI2LjIxMjU0NDA3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

11. 11.1.  Higgins JPT, 
    2.  Green S
    
    Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. [[http://www.cochrane-handbook.org](http://www.cochrane-handbook.org)]
    
    

12. 12.Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. In 2013.[http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp](http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp).
    
    

13. 13.Al-Saeedi M, Ghamarnejad O, Khajeh E, et al. Pringle Maneuver in Extended Liver Resection: A propensity score analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8847.
    
    

14. 14.Al-Saif FA, Aldekhayel MK, Al-Alem F, Hassanain MM, Mattar RE, Alsharabi A. Comparison study between open and laparoscopic liver resection in a Saudi tertiary center. Saudi Med J. 2019;40(5):452–457.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic21qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQwLzUvNDUyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDMvMjkvMjAyMS4wMy4yNi4yMTI1NDQwNy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

15. 15.Al-Alem F, Mattar RE, Fadl OA, Alsharabi A, Al-Saif F, Hassanain M. Morbidity and mortality and predictors of outcome following hepatectomy at a Saudi tertiary care center. Ann Saudi Med. 2016;36(6):414–421.
    
    

16. 16.Amico EC, Alves JR, João SA, Guimarães PL, Medeiros JA, Barreto ÉJ. IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS AFTER 88 HEPATECTOMIES - BRAZILIAN CONSECUTIVE SERIES. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2016 Jul-Sep;29(3):180–184.
    
    

17. 17.Attili A, Sucandy I, Spence J, Bourdeau T, Ross S, Rosemurgy A. Outcomes of extended hepatectomy for hepatobiliary tumors. Initial experience from a non-university hepatobiliary center. Am J Surg. 2020;219(1):106–109.
    
    

18. 18.Braunwarth E, Primavesi F, Göbel G, et al. Is bile leakage after hepatic resection associated with impaired long-term survival?. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(6):1077–1083.
    
    

19. 19.Chin KM, Koh YX, Syn N, et al. Early Prediction of Post-hepatectomy Liver Failure in Patients Undergoing Major Hepatectomy Using a PHLF Prognostic Nomogram. World J Surg. 2020;44(12):4197–4206.
    
    

20. 20.Chopinet S, Grégoire E, Bollon E, et al. Short-term outcomes after major hepatic resection in patients with cirrhosis: a 75-case unicentric western experience. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(3):352–360.
    
    

21. 21.Cieslak KP, Bennink RJ, de Graaf W, et al. Measurement of liver function using hepatobiliary scintigraphy improves risk assessment in patients undergoing major liver resection. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(9):773–780.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.hpb.2016.06.006&link_type=DOI) 

22. 22.Dasari BVM, Hodson J, Sutcliffe RP, et al. Developing and validating a preoperative risk score to predict 90-day mortality after liver resection. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119(4):472–478.
    
    

23. 23.Diggs LP, Aversa JG, Wiemken TL, et al. Patient Comorbidities Drive High Mortality Rates Associated with Major Liver Resections Irrespective of Hospital Volume [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 19]. Am Surg. 2020;3134820973368.
    
    

24. 24.Duarte VC, Coelho FF, Valverde A, et al. Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis. BMC Surg. 2020;20(1):260.
    
    

25. 25.Fujii Y, Nanashima A, Hiyoshi M, Imamura N, Yano K, Hamada T. Risk factors for hepatic insufficiency after major hepatectomy in non-cirrhotic patients. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(1):251–255.
    
    

26. 26.Garnier J, Faucher M, Marchese U, et al. Severe acute kidney injury following major liver resection without portal clamping: incidence, risk factors, and impact on short-term outcomes. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(9):865–871.
    
    

27. 27.Gelli M, Allard MA, Farges O, et al. Use of aspirin and bleeding-related complications after hepatic resection. Br J Surg. 2018;105(4):429–438.
    
    

28. 28.Gilg S, Sparrelid E, Isaksson B, Lundell L, Nowak G, Strömberg C. Mortality-related risk factors and long-term survival after 4460 liver resections in Sweden-a population-based study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402(1):105–113.
    
    

29. 29.Goh BK, Teo JY, Chan CY, et al. Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection at Singapore General Hospital: a nine-year experience of 195 consecutive resections. Singapore Med J. 2017;58(12):708–713.
    
    

30. 30.Gray AD, Petrou G, Rastogi P, Begbie S. Elective hepatic resection is feasible and safe in a regional centre. ANZ J Surg. 2018 Mar;88(3):E147–E151.
    
    

31. 31.Gupta AK, Kanhere HA, Maddern GJ, Trochsler MI. Liver resection in octogenarians: are the outcomes worth the risk? ANZ J Surg. 2018 Nov;88(11):E756–E760.
    
    

32. 32.Gyoeri GP, Pereyra D, Braunwarth E, et al. The 3-60 criteria challenge established predictors of postoperative mortality and enable timely therapeutic intervention after liver resection. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019;8(2):111–124.
    
    

33. 33.Halls MC, Cipriani F, Berardi G, et al. Conversion for Unfavorable Intraoperative Events Results in Significantly Worse Outcomes During Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Lessons Learned From a Multicenter Review of 2861 Cases. Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):1051–1057.
    
    

34. 34.Higashi T, Hayashi H, Taki K, et al. Sarcopenia, but not visceral fat amount, is a risk factor of postoperative complications after major hepatectomy [published correction appears in Int J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;22(5):986-990]. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(2):310–319.
    
    

35. 35.Hobeika C, Fuks D, Cauchy F, et al. Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey. Br J Surg. 2020;107(3):268–277.
    
    

36. 36.Khaoudy I, Farges O, Boleslawski E, et al. Half of Postoperative Deaths After Hepatectomy may be Preventable: A Root-cause Analysis of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):792–798.
    
    

37. 37.Lee KF, Chong C, Cheung S, et al. Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study [published online ahead of print, 2020 Nov 13]. Surg Endosc. 2020;doi:10.1007/s00464-020-07645-x.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00464-020-07645-x&link_type=DOI) 

38. 38.Lemke M, Karanicolas PJ, Habashi R, et al. Elevated Lactate is Independently Associated with Adverse Outcomes Following Hepatectomy. World J Surg. 2017;41(12):3180–3188.
    
    

39. 39.Levi Sandri GB, Colasanti M, Vennarecci G, et al. A 15-year experience of two hundred and twenty five consecutive right hepatectomies. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49(1):50–56.
    
    

40. 40.Lin S, Wu F, Wang L, et al. Surgical outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection vs. open liver resection: A retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study. Chin J Cancer Res. 2019;31(5):818–824.
    
    

41. 41.Longbotham D, Young A, Nana G, et al. The impact of age on post-operative liver function following right hepatectomy: a retrospective, single centre experience. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22(1):151–160.
    
    

42. 42.Donadon M, Fontana A, Palmisano A, et al. Individualized risk estimation for postoperative morbidity after hepatectomy: the Humanitas score. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(10):910–918.
    
    

43. 43.Ome Y, Hashida K, Yokota M, Nagahisa Y, Okabe M, Kawamoto K. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy in obese patients. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(1):180–188.
    
    

44. 44.Pietrasz D, Fuks D, Subar D, et al. Laparoscopic extended liver resection: are postoperative outcomes different?. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(12):4833–4840.
    
    

45. 45.Ratti F, Cipriani F, Reineke R, et al. The clinical and biological impacts of the implementation of fast-track perioperative programs in complex liver resections: A propensity score-based analysis between the open and laparoscopic approaches. Surgery. 2018;164(3):395–403.
    
    

46. 46.Ruzzenente A, Conci S, Ciangherotti A, et al. Impact of age on short-term outcomes of liver surgery: Lessons learned in 10-years’ experience in a tertiary referral hepatopancreato-biliary center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(20):e6955.
    
    

47. 47.Begum S, Khan MR. Short-term outcomes after hepatic resection : perspective from a developing country. J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67(8):1242–1247.
    
    

48. 48.Urbani L, Colombatto P, Balestri R, et al. Techniques of parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for the treatment of tumors involving the hepatocaval confluence: A reliable way to assure an adequate future liver remnant volume. Surgery. 2017;162(3):483–499.
    
    

49. 49.van Mierlo Kmc, Lodewick TM, Dhar DK, et al. Validation of the peak bilirubin criterion for outcome after partial hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(10):806–812.
    
    

50. 50.Viganò L, Torzilli G, Aldrighetti L, et al. Stratification of Major Hepatectomies According to Their Outcome: Analysis of 2212 Consecutive Open Resections in Patients Without Cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 2020;272(5):827–833.
    
    

51. 51.Worhunsky DJ, Dua MM, Tran TB, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy in cirrhotics: safe if you adjust technique. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(10):4307–4314.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00464-016-4748-6&link_type=DOI) 

52. 52.Yip VS, Dunne DF, Samuels S, et al. Adherence to early mobilisation: Key for successful enhanced recovery after liver resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(10):1561–1567.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2F2021.03.26.21254407.atom) 

53. 53.Mayo SC, Shore AD, Nathan H, et al. Refining the definition of perioperative mortality following hepatectomy using death within 90 days as the standard criterion. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13(7):473–482.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00326.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21689231&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F29%2F2021.03.26.21254407.atom) 

54. 54.Chang CM, Yin WY, Su YC, et al. Preoperative risk score predicting 90-day mortality after liver resection in a population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93(12):e59.