Predictive value and main determinants of abnormal features of intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy

Intraoperative cholangiography 2020: Quo vadis? A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

There are few randomized controlled trials with sufficient statistical power to assess the effectiveness of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the detection and treatment of common bile duct injury (BDI) or retained stones during cholecystectomy. The best evidence so far regarding IOC and reduced morbidity related to BDI and retained common bile duct stones was derived from large population-based cohort studies. Population-based studies also have the advantage of reflecting the outcome of the procedure as it is practiced in the community at large. However, the outcomes of these population-based studies are conflicting.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was conducted in 2020 to search for articles that contained the terms "bile duct injury", "critical view of safety", "bile duct imaging" or "retained stones" in combination with IOC. All identified references were screened to select population-based studies and observational studies from large centers where socioeconomic or geographical selections were assumed not to cause selection bias.

RESULTS

The search revealed 273 references. A total of 30 articles fulfilled the criteria for a large observational study with minimal risk for selection bias. The majority suggested that IOC reduces morbidity associated with BDI and retained common bile duct stones. In the short term, IOC increases the cost of surgery. However, this is offset by reduced costs in the long run since BDI or retained stones detected during surgery are managed immediately.

CONCLUSIONS

IOC reduces morbidity associated with BDI and retained common bile duct stones. The reports reviewed are derived from large, unselected populations, thereby providing a high external validity. However, more studies on routine and selective IOC with well-defined outcome measures and sufficient statistical power are needed.

Combination of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase and alkaline phosphatase in predicting the diagnosis of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis secondary to cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) is one of the most important laboratory tests for the evaluation of liver damage. Through a long-term clinical observation of patients with secondary asymptomatic choledocholithiasis, we found that most patients had abnormal GGT serum levels.

AIM

To investigate the combination of serum GGT and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in predicting the diagnosis of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis secondary to cholecystolithiasis.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the clinical data of 829 patients with cholecystolithiasis admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College from August 2014 to August 2017 were collected. Among these patients, 151 patients had secondary asymptomatic choledocholithiasis and served as the observation group, and the remaining 678 cholecystolithiasis patients served as the control group. Serum liver function indexes were detected in both groups, and the receiver operating characteristic (commonly known as ROC) curves were constructed for markers showing statistical significances. The cutoff value, sensitivity, and specificity of each marker were calculated according to the ROC curves.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis secondary to cholecystolithiasis was 18.2%. The results of liver function indexes including serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, direct bilirubin and total bilirubin levels showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the serum GGT and ALP levels were significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.881 (95%CI: 0.830-0.932), 0.647 (95%CI: 0.583-0.711) and 0.923 (95%CI: 0.892-0.953) for GGT, ALP, and GGT + ALP, respectively. The corresponding cut-off values of GGT and ALP were 95.5 U/L and 151.5 U/L, sensitivity were 90.8% and 65.1%, and specificity were 83.6% and 59.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of GGT + ALP were 93.5% and 85.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An abnormally elevated serum GGT level has an important value in the diagnosis of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis secondary to cholecystolithiasis. The combination of serum GGT and ALP has better diagnostic performance. As a convenient, rapid and inexpensive test, it should be applied in secondary asymptomatic choledocholithiasis routine screening.

A scoring system for the prediction of choledocholithiasis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Techniques for diagnosing choledocholithiasis pose significant morbidity and mortality risks.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop and validate a clinical scoring system for predicting choledocholithiasis.

DESIGN

Data from a prospectively maintained database of all patients with gallstones.

SETTING

Patients were admitted to the general surgery department of a military hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstones, biliary pancreatitis, obstructive jaundice, or cholangitis, who subsequently underwent biochemical testing and ultrasonography. A predictive model was developed from a scoring system using their imaging and laboratory data. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or intraoperative cholangiography were used for confirmatory diagnoses. The predictive efficacy of the scoring system was validated using a retrospective cohort of 272 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Predictive accuracy of the scoring system.

RESULTS

We enrolled 155 patients in the development group. The common bile duct diameter, alkaline phosphatase of >=200 IU, elevated bilirubin levels, alanine transaminase of >=220 IU, and male age of >=50 years were significantly associated with choledocholithiasis and were included in the scoring system. Ninety-six patients (35%) had scores of >=8 (high risk), 86 patients (32%) had scores of 4-7 (intermediate risk), and 27 patients (10%) had scores of 1-3 (low risk). In the validation cohort, the positive predictive value for a score of >=8 was 91.7%, and the scoring system had an area under the curve of 0.896.

CONCLUSION

Scores of >=8 were strongly correlated with choledocholithiasis in the developmental and validation groups, which indicates that our scoring system may be useful for predicting the need for therapeutic ERCP. However, prospective validation in a large multicenter cohort is needed to fully understand the benefits of the system.

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective validation cohort might have introduced selection and observational biases. The study may have been underpowered because of the sample size of the developmental cohort. The delay between admission and the time of ERCP theoretically may have increased the number of negative ERCP results, but our false negative rate for ERCP was consistent with the previously reported rates.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).The single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.It should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for secondary common bile duct stones compared with laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in preoperative patients with secondary common bile duct stones during the application of laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE).

Material/Methods

The clinical records of 255 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All patients included in the study were examined by MRCP 3 days prior to LTCBDE.

Results

Secondary bile duct stones were detected in 220 patients using LTCBDE. Of the patients diagnosed by MRCP, 141 were true-positive, 28 were true-negative, 7 were false-positive and 79 were false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRCP for secondary common bile duct stones were 64.09%, 80.00%, 66.27%, 95.27%, and 26.17%, respectively. When the cases with muddy stones were excluded, the outcomes were 80.41%, 79.41%, 69.23%, 94.44%, and 48.21%, respectively. When cases with stones <3 mm (inclusive) in diameter were excluded, the outcomes were 93.75%, 79.41%, 86.27%, 93.75%, and 65.85%, respectively. When cases with stones <5 mm (inclusive) in diameter were excluded, the outcomes were 93.10%, 79.41%, 89.26%, 92.05%, and 81.82%, respectively.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of preoperative MRCP is overestimated for the diagnosis of secondary common bile duct stones, particularly for muddy and micro-stones.

Real-time near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent cholangiography in single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC): a single-institutional prospective study

BACKGROUND

Bile duct injury is a rare but serious complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the primary cause is misinterpretation of biliary anatomy. This may occur more frequently with a single-incision approach due to difficulties in exposing and visualizing the triangle of Calot. Intraoperative cholangiography was proposed to overcome this problem, but due to multiple issues, it is not used routinely. Indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent cholangiography is non invasive and provides real-time biliary images during surgery, which may improve the safety of single-incision cholecystectomy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique during single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC).

METHODS

Patients presenting with symptomatic biliary gallstones without suspicion of common bile duct stones underwent SSRC with ICG-NIR fluorescent cholangiography using the da Vinci Fluorescence Imaging Vision System. During patient preparation, 2.5 mg of ICG was injected intravenously. During surgery, the biliary anatomy was imaged in real time, which guided dissection of Calot's triangle. Perioperative outcomes included biliary tree visualizations, operative time, conversion and complications rates, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

There were 45 cases between July 2011 and January 2012. All procedures were completed successfully; there were no conversions and at least one structure was visualized in each patient. The rates of visualization were 93 % for the cystic duct, 88 % for the common hepatic duct, and 91 % for the common bile duct prior to Calot's dissection; after Calot's dissection, the rates were 97 % for all three ducts. Mean hospital stay was 1.1 days and there were no bile duct injuries or any other major complications.

CONCLUSION

Real-time high-resolution fluorescent imaging to identify the biliary tree anatomy during SSRC using the da Vinci Fluorescence Imaging Vision System was safe and effective.

ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a combined (one-step) procedure: a random comparison to the standard (two-step) procedure

BACKGROUND

Current treatment of complicated calculous biliary disease typically involves a two-step procedure consisting of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Alternatively, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) and intraoperative common bile duct exploration or ERCP at a later date may be performed. This study compared the benefits of the traditional two-step procedure to the novel one-step procedure for the management of calculous biliary disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 20 patients was conducted comparing one-step to two-step procedures for the management of choledocholithiasis. We define the one-step procedure to be a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with IOC to confirm the presence or absence of stones. Intraoperative ERCP with stone extraction was conducted if necessary as part of the one-step procedure.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference existed between hospital charges for one-step ($58,145.30, SD $17,963.09) and two-step ($78,895.53, SD $21,954.78) procedures (p = 0.033). Other parameters (length of stay, preoperative days) trended toward significance; however, statistical significance was not achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a significant cost reduction with implementation of the one-step treatment of calculous biliary disease. Further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure and to help augment the surgical endoscopists' armamentarium.

Is endoscopic ultrasound needed as an add-on test for gallstone diseases without choledocholithiasis on multidetector computed tomography?

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis commonly occurs in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. Although the recently developed multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scan enhances the ability to diagnose choledocholithiasis, this technique is considered to have some limitations for evaluating the common bile duct (CBD).

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity for performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as an add-on test to detect choledocholithiasis in patients who were diagnosed with gallstone disease without choledocholithiasis based on MDCT.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty patients with gallstone disease and no evidence of CBD stones according to MDCT underwent EUS between March 2006 and April 2011. If CBD stones were suspected based on the EUS results or clinical symptoms, a final diagnosis was obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The patients' medical records were retrospectively analyzed based on clinical symptoms, biochemical findings, and results of the imaging studies.

RESULTS

CBD stones were not detected with MDCT in 41 (12.8 %) out of 320 patients with gallstone disease. The causes for these discrepancies could be attributed to small stone size (n = 19, 46.3 %), isodensity (n = 18, 43.9 %), impacted stones (n = 1, 2.4 %), and misdiagnosis (n = 3, 7.3 %). If EUS were used as a triage tool, unnecessary diagnostic ERCP and its complications could be avoided for 245 (76.6 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MDCT may not be a primary technique for detecting CBD stones. EUS should be performed instead as an add-on test to evaluate the CBD for patients with gallstone-related disease. In particular, EUS should be routinely recommended for patients with abnormal liver enzyme levels, pancreatitis, and dilated CBD.

Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography: a retrospective study on 1,100 selected patients

BACKGROUND

Whether to routinely or selectively use intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been a controversial issue for many years. Many authors maintain that IOC decreases the rate of biliary complications such as bile duct injuries, biliary leak, and missed common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, in contrast to these claims, many centers have opted to perform LC without IOC. In this retrospective study, the results of a series of 1,100 LCs, all of which involved major biliary complications and which were performed without the use of IOC, were reviewed.

METHODS

Data from 1,100 selected patients (728 females and 372 males) undergoing LC without the use of IOC from January 2003 to November 2011 were analyzed. One hundred and seventy LCs were performed by young surgeons during the learning curve, and 930 by surgeons with over 10 years of experience. Two techniques were used to create pneumoperitoneum: the Veress technique in 319 cases (29%) and the Hasson technique in the remaining 781 cases (71%). Patients with a suspicion of CBD stones were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Two CBD injuries (0.18%) and three biliary leaks (0.27%) were detected among this group. Thirty-three patients (3%) needed conversion to open cholecystectomy. Missed CBD stones were reported in 4 cases (0.36%). There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

LC can be performed safely without the use of IOC and with acceptable low rates of biliary complications. An accurate preoperative evaluation of clinical risk factors, precise operative procedures, and conversion to an open approach in doubtful cases are important measures which must be taken to prevent CBD injury.