Complications of laparoscopic surgery

Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis.

This paper reports the experience of three general surgeons performing 304 laparoscopic cholecystectomies in three private hospitals between October 1989 and November 1990. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy boasts two major advantages over the conventional procedure: the remarkable reduction in postoperative pain and economic benefit, largely due to the patient's early return to work. Revealing a complication rate of 2% and no deaths, this study has shown that this procedure can offer patients these advantages with a medical risk no greater than that accompanying conventional cholecystectomy. Patient safety must be paramount, and it is the responsibility of the surgical community to ensure that all surgeons receive the highest quality training and that the technique is applied appropriately.

Appraisal of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The initial 22-month experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 400 patients employing an algorithm of selective cholangiographic evaluation is reported. Preoperative or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography was performed whenever stones were suspected clinically. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography was performed in 44 patients (11%), in whom 14 (3.5%) had an endoscopic sphincterotomy with extraction of common bile duct stones. Intraoperative cholangiography was performed in only eight patients (2%) almost exclusively to acquire experience with the technique, and all cholangiograms were normal. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was successfully completed in 96% of the patients. There were no deaths in this series, and major complications occurred in only 5% of patients. Two patients (0.5%) had a significant common bile duct injury that was recognized and successfully repaired at the initial operation. No late common bile duct strictures have been recognized. Six patients (1.5%) underwent postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for suspected common bile duct stones, with three patients requiring endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction. This experience suggests that the use of preoperative and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography can be based on clinical presentation and laboratory evaluation and does not need to be performed routinely. Routine intraoperative cholangiography is not necessary in most patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The authors conclude that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely with the selective use of cholangiography.

Selective cholangiography: Current role in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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.

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

The value of a routine intraoperative cholangiogram is controversial. We reviewed 352 consecutive instances of cholecystectomy for nonmalignant disease during a period of three years to assess the diagnostic accuracy and additional cost of the roentgenographic technique. Intraoperative cholangiogram was done in all except 11 patients. Forty-nine of 341 patients underwent exploration of the common bile duct. The diagnosis was determined by the cholangiogram and was correct in 46 patients with three false-positive results. The other 292 patients did well without exploration of the common bile duct. The cholangiocatheter and a special cholangioclamp made the procedure easy and minimized additional operation time (five minutes with no mortality and negligible morbidity). Clinical indications for exploration of the common bile duct correlated poorly with abnormal findings in the bile duct. Unsuspected common duct stones were detected by cholangiogram in 17 (5 per cent) patients. Possible iatrogenic trauma to the common duct was prevented when significant abnormal findings were demonstrated by cholangiogram. The results of this study indicate that routine intraoperative cholangiogram is: accurate for diagnosis of common bile duct stones; useful in identification of bile duct anomalies and, thus, aids in preventing injury to the common bile duct; safe with negligible risk, and neither expensive nor time consuming if done correctly as a routine procedure.

Routine intraoperative cholangiogram.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Kerstein

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Routine intraoperative cholangiogram.