Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Sub Heading
- •Outcomes
- •Study Limitation
- •Inconsistency
- •Directness
- •Precision
- •Publication Bias
- •Features Increasing Quality of Observational Studies
- •Large Magnitude of Effect
- •Introduction
- •Ask the Clinical Question
- •Find the Evidence
- •Appraise the Studies
- •The GRADE System
- •The Header
- •Dose Response Gradient
- •All Plausible Confounding Would Reduce the Demonstrated Effect or Increase it if No Effect Was Observed
- •Summary of Findings
- •Other Resources
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection Versus Observation for Giant Hemangiomas
- •Treatment of Giant Hemangiomas: Operative Approaches and Non-surgical Therapies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Observation vs Surgical Treatment with Hepatectomy
- •Enucleation vs Hepatectomy
- •Minimal Invasive Approach
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cavernous Hemangioma
- •Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •Hepatocellular Adenoma
- •Biliary Hamartoma
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Considerations
- •Congenital Cysts
- •Neoplastic Cysts
- •Traumatic Cysts
- •Infectious Cysts
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Non-operative Management
- •Angiography and Embolization
- •Outcomes
- •Surgical Strategies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Expanding the Milan Criteria
- •Salvage Transplantation
- •Treatment Prior to Transplantation
- •Living Donor Liver Transplantation for HCC
- •Comparative Outcomes Between Resection and Transplantation for HCC
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Presentation
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Alternative Therapies
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance and Risk Factors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Screening Strategies
- •Serum Alpha-Feto Protein (AFP)
- •Ultrasonography (US) with or Without Serum AFP
- •Cross Sectional Imaging
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Etiology of Liver Abscesses
- •Predicting Prognosis
- •Treatment Options
- •Antibiotic Therapy
- •Radiologic Intervention
- •Surgical Therapy
- •Liver Abscess After Liver Transplantation
- •Personal Experience
- •Summary
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recommendations
- •The EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines
- •Other Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Additional Considerations
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •The Child-Pugh Scoring System
- •The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Score
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Volumetry
- •Transient Elastography
- •The Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Strategy Discussion
- •Results
- •Risk of Recurrence
- •Conclusion
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Liver Failure Following Liver Resection
- •Evaluation of the Degree of Chronic Liver Disease
- •Search Strategy
- •Liver Resections and the Childs-Turcotte-Pugh Score
- •Liver Resections and the Meld Score
- •Child-Turcotte-Pugh vs. MELD Score
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Retrospective Studies
- •Prospective Studies
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Operative Time
- •Perioperative Mortality and Morbidity
- •Hospital Length of Stay
- •Long-Term Outcomes
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Potential Exceptions to Recommendations
- •Utilization of CBDE and Future Directions for Training
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared with Standard Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
- •Peri-operative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Conversion Rates
- •Cost
- •Pain
- •Cosmesis, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life Scores
- •Hernia Rates
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Retrospective Review
- •Randomized Trials
- •Meta-analysis/Systematic Reviews
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Hepatolithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Choledocholithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis Following Biliary-Enteric Anastomosis for Benign Disease
- •Recommendations for Treatment of Recurrent Cholangitis
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •PBDS After Complex Hepatobiliary Procedures
- •PBDS After Cholecystectomy
- •Surgical Repair
- •Percutaneous Therapy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Studies with Multiple Treatment Techniques
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Long-Term Success Rate
- •Method of Repair
- •Mortality
- •Health-Related Quality of Life and Cost
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendation Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •LCBDE Versus Postoperative ERCP
- •LCBDE Versus OCBCE
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Literature Search
- •Results
- •Treatment of Tis and T1a Tumors
- •Treatment of T1b Tumors
- •Treatment Options for Stage T2/T3
- •Common Bile Duct Resections
- •Port Site Resections
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Expert View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Enterolithotomy vs Enterolithotomy with Cholecystectomy and Cholecysto-Enteric Fistula Closure
- •Recurrent Gallstone Ileus
- •Minimally Invasive Techniques
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Summary of Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Studies Comparing Endoscopic and Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Endoscopic Intervention
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Routine Versus Selective Cholangiography
- •Near Infrared Fluorescent Cholangiography
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Biliary Resection and Biliary Bypass
- •Risk of Malignancy
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA)
- •Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA)
- •Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •Novel Endoscopic Techniques
- •Personal View
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Transcatheter Arterial Embolization
- •Biliary Stenting
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Importance of a Negative Resection Margin for Prognosis After Curative-Intent Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Achieving a Negative Bile Duct Margin: Hepatectomy Versus Bile Duct Resection
- •Impact of Caudate Lobectomy in Hepatectomy for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Preoperative Assessment of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Assessment of the Bile Duct Margin and Operative Outcome
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance of PVT After Liver Transplantation
- •Treatment Strategies
- •Anticoagulation
- •Surgical Revascularization
- •Thrombolysis Without Mechanical Methods
- •Mechanical Methods with Thrombolysis
- •Mechanical Methods Without Thrombolysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •First Line Therapy
- •Rescue Therapies
- •Balloon Tamponade
- •TIPS
- •Early TIPS
- •Complications of TIPS
- •Surgical Shunt
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search
- •Results
- •Esophageal Varices
- •Ascites
- •Other Manifestations of Portal Hypertension
- •Non-esophageal Varices
- •Hepatic Hydrothorax
- •Hepatorenal Syndrome
- •Other
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Prevalence and Clinical Importance
- •Risk Factors
- •Detection and Evaluation
- •Natural History
- •Treatment Indications and Outcomes
- •Recommendations
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patients with Interstitial, Edematous, or Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
- •Patients with Severe or Necrotizing Pancreatitis
- •The Role for Endoscopic Sphincterotomy
- •Cost Implications
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Necrosis-EN vs. PN
- •Route of Enteral Feeding in Acute Pancreatitis-NG vs. NJ
- •Type of TF
- •Timing of Feeding Initiation- Early vs. Late
- •Future Directions
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Surgical Versus Endoscopic Management
- •Laparoscopic Management
- •Endoscopic Management
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Early Studies: Prophylaxis and Decreased Infected Necrosis
- •Recent Randomized Trials: Prophylaxis Reconsidered
- •A Review of Disparate Results
- •Antimicrobial Resistance and Atypical Organisms
- •Evidence-Based Protocol for “On-Demand” Antibiotics
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Management of Symptomatic Walled-Off Necrosis (WON)
- •Indication of Drainage
- •Which Modality to Choose
- •The Diminishing Role of Open Necrosectomy
- •Minimally Invasive Necrosectomy (MIN)
- •Laparoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Retroperitoneal Necrosectomy
- •Percutaneous Drainage
- •Endoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Step-Up Approach
- •Conclusion/Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Open Procedure
- •Endoscopic Drainage
- •Laparoscopic Procedures
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Pain Relief
- •Morbidity and Mortality
- •Repeated Interventions, Hospitalizations, and Costs
- •Timing of Intervention
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Randomized Clinical Trials
- •Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patient Selection
- •Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Islet Function
- •Pain Relief/Narcotic Requirement
- •QOL/Durability
- •Cancer Risk
- •Expert Consensus
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data

307
multiple medical co-morbidities would be best managed with minimally invasive
endoscopic techniques. But what about the asymptomatic patient with mild elevations in serum alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin with common bile duct dilation?
What is the natural history of that disorder? Identifi cation of the non-dilatable stricture is diffi cult and is the crux of the patient selection process. When patients have
symptomatic terminal biliary stenosis with fi brosing pancreatitis repeated endoscopic stent ing may be needed indefi nitely. Choledochoduodenostomy is an attractive long-term solution and may be performed with minimally invasive laparoscopic
techniques. However, chronic peripancreatic and peri-duodenal infl ammation may
make the operation diffi cult and hazardous. Normal anatomic landmarks may be
hidden and simple identifi cation of the infl amed and dilated common bile duct can
be a challenge. When duodenal fi brosis is severe, mobilization and anastomosis
between a fi brotic duodenum and the bile duct may not be possible. In this situation
pre-operatively placed transpapillary biliary stent s are useful to protect the anastomosis post-operatively. Alternatively, Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy may be
more prudent when the duodenum is unfavorable for anastomosis. Patients who
have cavernous transformation of the portal vein associated with CP superior mesenteric and portal vein stenosis can safely undergo CDD though increased operative
blood loss is expected, and these patients are frequently directed towards endoscopic therapy. An evidence-based approach to biliary stricture s in chronic pancreatitis is problematic and patient selection remains grounded in local experience. As
new minimally invasive laparoscopic and endoscopic tools and techniques are
developed they can be better tested against traditional open surgical techniques in
appropriately classifi ed patient cohorts and evidence will replace experience in clinical practice.
References
1. Regimbeau JM, Fuks D, Bartoli E, Fumery M, Hanes A, et al. A comparative study of surgery
and endoscopy for the treatment of bile duct strictures in patients with chronic pancreatitis.
Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2902–8.
2. Sanders RL. Indications for and value of choledochoduodenostomy. Ann Surg.
1946;123:847–55.
3. Leppard WM, Shary TM, Adams DB, Morgan KA. Choledochoduodenostomy: is it really so
bad? J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:754–7.
4. Bosanquet DC, Cole M, Conway KC, Lewis M. Choledochoduodenostomy reevaluated in the
endoscopic and laparoscopic era. HepatoGastroenterology. 2012;59:2410–5.
5. Mendes De Almeida A, Dos Santos N, et al. Choledochoduodenostomy in the management of
common duct stones or associated pathology- an obsolete method? HPB Surg.
1996;10:27–33.
6. Escudero-Fabre A, Escallon A, et al. Choledochoduodenostomy: analysis of 71 cases followed
for 5 to 15 years. Ann Surg. 1991;213:635–42.
7. Blankenstein J, Terpstra O. Early and late results following choledochoduodenostomy and
choledochojejunostomy. HPB Surg. 1990;2:151–8.
8. Nealon WH, Urrutia F. Long-term follow-up after bilioenteric anastomosis for benign bile duct
stricture. Ann Surg. 1996;6:639–48.
26 Surgery or Endoscopy for Bile Duct Strictures Secondary to Chronic Pancreatitis?

308
9. Khajanchee YS, Cassera MA, Hammill CW, Swanstrom LL, Hanson PD. Outcomes following
laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy in the management of benign biliary obstruction.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:801–5.
10. Jeyapalan M, Almeida J, et al. Laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy: review of a 4-year
experience with an uncommon problem. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech.
2002;12:148–53.
11. Howard JM, Zhang Z. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple resection) in the treatment of
chronic pancreatitis. World J Surg. 1990;14:77–82.
12. Frey CF, Suzuki M, Isaji S. Treatment of chronic pancreatitis complicated by obstruction of the
common bile duct or duodenum. World J Surg. 1990;14:59–69.
13. Izbicki JR, Bloechle C, Knoefel WT, Wilker DK, Dornschneider G, et al. Complications of
adjacent organs in chronic pancreatitis managed by duodenum preserving resection of the head
of the pancreas. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1351–5.
14. Izbicki JR, Bloechle C, Broering DC, Broelsch CE. Reinsertion of the distal common bile duct
into the resection cavity during duodenum-preserving resection of the head of the pancreas for
chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1997;84:791–2.
15. Cataldegirmen G, Bogoevski D, Mann O, Kaifi JT, Izbicki JR, Yekebas EF. Late morbidity
after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection with bile duct reinsertion into the resection cavity. Br J Surg. 2008;95:447–52.
16. Rebibo L, Yzet T, Cosse C, Delcenserie R, Bartoli E, Regimbeau JM. Frey procedure for the
treatment of chronic pancreatitis associated with common bile duct stricture. Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Dis Int. 2013;12:637–44.
17. Davids PH, Rauws EA, Coene PP, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K. Endoscopic stenting for post-
operative biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:12–8.
18. Costamagna G, Pandolfi M, Mutignani M, Spada C, Perri V. Long-term results of endoscopic
management of postoperative bile duct strictures with increasing numbers of stents. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2001;54:162–8.
19. Costamagna G, Tringali A, Mutignani M, Perri V, Spada C, Pandolfi M, Galasso D. Endotherapy
of postoperative biliary strictures with multiple stents: results after more than 10 years of follow- up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:551–7.
20. Deviere J, Devaere S, Baize M, et al. Endoscopic biliary drainage in chronic pancreatitis.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36:96–100.
21. Barthet M, Bernard JP, Duval JL, Affriat C, et al. Biliary stenting in benign biliary stenosis
complicating chronic calcifying pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 1994;26:569–72.
22. Smits ME, Rauws EA, van Gulik TM, Gouma DJ, Tytgat GN. Long-term results of endoscopic
stenting and surgical drainage for biliary stricture due to chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg.
1996;83:764–8.
23. Vitale GC, Reed Jr DN, Nguyen CT, et al. Endoscopic treatment of distal bile duct stricture
from chronic pancreatitis. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:227–31.
24. Farnbacher MJ, Rabenstein T, Ell C, et al. Is endoscopic drainage of common bile duct stenosis
in chronic pancreatitis up to date? Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1466–71.
25. Eickhoff A, Jakobs R, Leonhardt A, et al. Endoscopic stenting for common bile duct stenosis
in chronic pancreatitis: results and impact on long-term outcome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2001;13:1161–7.
26. Kahl S, Zimmerman S, Genz I, Glasbrenner B, Pross M, et al. Risk factors for failure of endo-
scopic stenting in chronic pancreatitis: a prospective follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol.
2003;98:2448–53.
27. Catalano MF, Linder JD, George S, Alcocer E, Geenen JE. Treatment of symptomatic distal
common bile duct stenosis secondary to chronic pancreatitis: comparison of single vs multiple
simultaneous stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:945–52.
28. Cahen DL, van Berkel A-MM, Oskam D, et al. Long-term results of endoscopic drainage of
common bile duct strictures in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2005;17:103–8.
K.A. Morgan et al.

309
29. Dragonov P, Hoffman B, Marsh W, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with benign biliary
strictures treated endoscopically with multiple stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:680–6.
30. Pozsar J, Sahin P, Laszlo F, Forro G, Topa L. Medium-term results of endoscopic treatment of
common bile duct strictures in chronic calcifying pancreatitis with increasing numbers of
stents. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;38:118–23.
31. Weber A, Zellner S, Wagenpfeil S, Schneider J, Gerngross C, et al. Long-term follow-up after
endoscopic stent therapy for benign biliary strictures. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:88–93.
32. Cahen D, Rauws EA, Gouma DJ, et al. Removable fully covered self-expandable metal stents
to prevent migration in patients with benign biliary strictures: a multicenter, prospective, comparative pilot study. Endoscopy. 2008;40:697–700.
33. Behm B, Brock A, Clarke BW, et al. Partially covered self-expandable metallic stents for
benign biliary strictures due to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2009;41:547–51.
34. Mahajan A, Ho H, Sauer B, et al. Temporary placement of fully covered self-expandable metal
stents in benign biliary strictures: midterm evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:303–9.
35. Poley JW, Cahen DL, Metselaar HJ, et al. A prospective group sequential study evaluating a
new type of fully covered self-expandable metal stent for the treatment of benign biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:783–9.
36. Perri V, Boskoski I, Tringali A, et al. Fully covered self-expandable metal stents in biliary
strictures caused by chronic pancreatitis not responding to plastic stenting: a prospective study
with 2 years of follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1271–8.
37. Kahaleh M, Brijbassie A, Sethi A, et al. Multicenter trial evaluating the use of covered self-
expanding metal stents in benign biliary strictures: time to revisit our therapeutic options?
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:695–9.
38. Deviere J, Reddy DN, Puspok A, Ponchon T, Bruno MJ, et al. Successful management of
benign biliary strictures with fully covered self-expanding metal stents. Gastroenterol.
2014;147:385–95.
39. Keck T, Marjanovic G, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Makowiec F, Schäfer AO, Rodriguez JR,
Razo O, Hopt UT, Warshaw AL. The infl ammatory pancreatic head mass: signifi cant differences in the anatomic pathology of German and American patients with chronic pancreatitis
determine very different surgical strategies. Ann Surg. 2009;249:105–10.
40. Dumonceau JM, Trinagli A, Blero D, Deviere J, Laugeirs R, Heresbach D, Costamagna,
European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents
and results: European gastrointestinal endoscopy clinical guideline. Endoscopy.
2012;44:277–98.
26 Surgery or Endoscopy for Bile Duct Strictures Secondary to Chronic Pancreatitis?

311© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
J.M. Millis, J.B. Matthews (eds.), Diffi cult Decisions in Hepatobiliary
and Pancreatic Surgery, Diffi cult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based
Approach, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27365-5_27
Chapter 27
Routine or Selective Cholangiography
for Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?
Shane Svoboda and Brian L. Bello
Abstract Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most commonly per-
formed surgical procedures today and is considered the standard of care for gallbladder removal. The role of routine versus selective intraoperative cholangiography
(IOC) in elective LC to prevent bile duct injury and detect choledocholithiasis
remains in dispute. Routine cholangiography may decrease the overall incidence or
severity of bile duct injuries. IOC may also play a role in the optimal management
of patients with risk of a common duct stone. Controversy arises with routine IOC
which may to added operative time, cost, and secondary procedures, suggesting a
more selective approach may be more benefi cial. Newer techniques such as nearinfrared fl uorescence cholangiography may be an alternative to traditional IOC.
Keywords Cholangiography • Cholecystectomy • Laparoscopy • Bile duct injury •
Fluorescent cholangiography
Introduction
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most commonly performed
abdominal procedures in the world. Morbidity associated with LC may be as high
as 2–4 % with bile duct injury (BDI) a rare but devastating complication leading to
a potential threefold increase in mortality [ 1 ]. In the era of laparoscopy , recent stud-
ies have demonstrated consistently an increased incidence of bile duct injury of
about 0.2–0.6 % [ 1 , 2 ] compared to that of 0.1–0.3 % for open cholecystectomy [ 3 ,
4 ]. Improving these rates in the technique currently considered standard of care
must be addressed.
The use of intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) during elective LC remains con-
troversial in its role as routine practice for all patients versus selective practice,
S. Svoboda • B. L. Bello (*)
Department of Surgery , Sinai Hospital of Baltimore ,
2435 W Belvedere Avenue, Hoffberger Building Suite 42 , Baltimore , MD 21215 , USA
e-mail:
brianbello@gmail.com

312
reserved for those patients with risk for common bile duct stones or diffi cult anatomy. Differences in training and personal experience have led to varied practices in
the use of IOC and remain a matter of surgeon preference. Some surgeons believe
that obtaining a “critical view of safety” is suffi cient for identifi cation of vital structures while other surgeons see routine IOC as the gold standard for biliary identifi cation and imaging [ 5 , 6 ]. Selective IOC users believe it changes management in
relatively few cases and apply it only in cases where choledocholithiasis is suspected or among patients at high risk for common bile duct injury . Another argument against routine IOC is that cholangiography may be misinterpreted by surgeons
over half of the time [ 7 ].
This chapter is an evidenced-based review of recent literature focusing on the
potential advantages and disadvantages of routine cholangiography compared to
selective cholangiography in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy . Outcomes such as morbidity , secondary procedures, and cost will be specifi cally examined. We will also address the newer techniques of near-infrared
fl uorescence cholangiography that may become an alternative to traditional IOC.
Search Strategy
A literature search of English language publications from 2005 to 2014 was used to
identify published data on intraoperative cholangiogram using the PICO outline
(Table 27.1 ). Databases searched were PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Evidence
Based Medicine , and TRIP database. Terms used in the search were “cholangiogram, routine, selective,” “cholangiogram, bile duct injury ,” “cholangiogram, complications,” and “cholangiogram, cost .” Randomized controlled studies were
reviewed as well as comparative studies with greater than 400 patients. All studies
regarding near-infrared cholangiography were reviewed. The data was classifi ed
using the GRADE system.
Table 27.1 PICO table for routine versus selective cholangiography for elective laparoscopic
cholecystectomy
P (patients) I (intervention) C (comparator) O ( outcomes)
Patients
undergoing elective
laparoscopic
cholecystectomy
Routine
intraoperative
cholangiography
Selective
intraoperative
cholangiography
Bile duct injury, retained
stones, operating time,
secondary procedures, false
positives, cost
S. Svoboda and B.L. Bello

313
Results
Routine Versus Selective Cholangiography
The role of routine intraoperative cholangiography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
is controversial. When surveyed by the American College of Surgeons, general surgeons had varying opinions. Twenty seven percent identifi ed themselves as “routine
users” using IOC in more than 75 % of their cases. “Selective users” tended to be
low-volume surgeons with less than 20 LC per year. “Routine users” responded
more favorably regarding IOC believing that routine use was overall less costly and
more protective of injury [ 8 ]. Part of the lack of consensus on this topic among
surgeons is the confl icting evidence in the literature.
In the 1990s, there were few randomized, prospective trials conducted comparing routine IOC versus no IOC. Soper and Dunnegan found an increased operative
time of 16 min in patients undergoing routine IOC with an increase in total charges
by $700 [ 9 ]. Nies et al. found no difference in morbidity or mortality between the
two groups, and the operations with routine IOC lasted signifi cantly longer (92 vs.
77 min) [ 10 ]. Each trial concluded that routine IOC was not justifi ed.
Two more recent randomized controlled trials are summarized in Tables 27.2
and 27.3 . Like the two previous trials, Khan et al. in 2011 studied the difference
between routine IOC versus no IOC. They studied 190 patients that were at low risk
of common duct stones and found a longer operative time (66 vs. 54 min; p < 0.001)
with no statistical difference in readmission rates and morbidity including retained
stones or common bile duct injury . The authors concluded that routine cholangiography was not indicated [ 11 ]. In contrast, Amott et al. in 2005 randomized 303
patients to undergo routine or selective IOC. There was no difference in operating
time, retained stones or common bile duct injury. However, the authors still changed
their practice to performing routine IOC because seven of eight patients who presented with a retained common bile duct stone postoperatively did not undergo
IOC. Three of the seven had normal LFTs and a normal ultrasound preoperatively
and would have been missed with a selective approach. They also argued an
unplanned IOC may lead to a signifi cant increase in operative time versus a routine
and planned IOC because the operating room staff would already have the equipment in place [ 12 ].
These aforementioned randomized trials were limited by having relatively low
numbers at a single center. In fact, due to the low incidence of bile duct injury , the
number of patients needed to conduct a randomized, controlled trial with adequate
power in order to avoid a type II error would be greater than 30,000 [ 13 ].
Despite the lack of randomized trials, it is possible to garner some information
from other types of comparative studies. There are several, large prospective registries that examine bile duct injuries in routine IOC versus no IOC. In the Swiss
prospective registry, 36.6 % of 31,838 patients underwent IOC which is a similar
rate as in the United States. The rate of biliary injuries was 0.3 % in each of the two
groups suggesting no effect of IOC on the prevention and detection of biliary
27 Routine or Selective Cholangiography for Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

314
Table 27.2 Routine intraoperative cholangiography versus no intraoperative cholangiography
Author
(date)
N (pts)
Bile duct
injury (%)
Intraoperative
retained stones
(%)
Postoperative
retained stones
(%)
Operating
time (min)
Secondary
procedures
(%)
False
positives
(%)
Cost
($) Study type IOC No IOC IOC
No
IOC IOC
No
IOC IOC
No
IOC IOC
No
IOC IOC
No
IOC
Khan (2011)
[
11 ]
91 99 0 (0) 1 (0)
a
3 (3) 0 (0)
a
0 (0) 0 (0)
a
66 ± 2 54 ± 3 NR NR 0 (0) NR RCT level
1B
Giger
(2012) [
15 ]
11,642 20,196 40
(0.3)
61
(0.3)
a
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Prospective
registry level
III
Törnqvist
(2012) [
15 ]
51,041 747 (1.5 %),
incidence of
BDI in IOC
group 29 %
lower (exact
number not
reported)
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Prospective
registry level
III
RCT Randomized clinical trial , NR not reported
a
No statistical difference
S. Svoboda and B.L. Bello

Table 27.3 Routine intraoperative cholangiography versus selective intraoperative cholangiography
Author
(date)
N (pts) Bile duct injury (%)
Intraoperative
retained stones (%)
Postoperative
retained stones (%)
Operating time
(min)
Secondary
procedures (%)
False
positives
(%)
Cost ($)
Study type
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Routine
IOC
Selective
IOC
Amott
(2005) [
12 ]
148 155 1 (0.68) 1 (0.64)
a
12 (8.1) 5 (3.2)
a
3 (2.0) 5 (3.2)
a
56 61
a
12 (8.1
%)
NR 0
NR
RCT level 1B
Nuzzo
(2005) [ 2 ]
56,591 (Routine IOC
done in 10.3 %
general surgery
units; selective IOC
done in 89.7 %
general surgery
units)
25 (0.32) 210
(0.43)
a
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Retrospective
study level III
Ragulin-
Coyne
(2013) [ 16 ]
111,815 (Routine
IOC surgeons 10.8
%; Selective IOC
surgeons 89.2 %)
(0.25) (0.26)
a
NR NR NR NR NR NR (15.8) (12.7) NR 10425 9495 Retrospective
study level III
Buddingh
(2011) [ 17 ]
435 (60 %
had IOC)
421 11 (2.5);
major
BDI 0
(0)
15 (3.5)
a
;
major
BDI 8
(1.9 %)
21 (4.8) 4 (1.0) NR NR 110 ± 44 100 ± 47 83
(19.1)
102
(24.2)
a
NR NR Retrospective
study level III
Nickkholgh
(2006) [
18 ]
1,330 800 0 (0) 2 (0.25)
a
37 (2.8) 9 (1.1) NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR Retrospective
study level III
RCT Randomized clinical trial , NR not reported
a
No statistical difference

316
injuries [ 14 ]. The Swedish prospective registry found 747 bile duct injuries in
51,041 laparoscopic cholecystectomies for a rate of 1.5 %. This relatively high
number was likely due to the inclusion of minor bile duct injuries. The incidence of
a bile duct injury (BDI) was 29 % lower when IOC was successfully performed or
attempted suggesting a possible protective effect [ 15 ]. These studies are included
Table 27.2 . A large, retrospective national survey from Italy examined 56,591
patients in different general surgery units that underwent LC and demonstrated no
statistical difference in BDI between routine and selective IOC (0.32 % vs. 0.43 %).
However, only 10.3 % of general surgery units surveyed underwent routine IOC
much lower than other countries [ 2 ]. This study is included in Table 27.3 . These
sizeable studies are good because of the large numbers but have to be interpreted
with caution as the frequency of IOC may be considerably different from other studies and there are very few listed specifi cs regarding the context of surgery.
Ragulin-Coyne and colleagues queried Nationwide Inpatient Sample data and
found 111,815 patients who presented with acute biliary disease who underwent
laparoscopic cholecystectomy . They dichotomized surgeons into a routine IOC surgeons and selective IOC surgeons. Their data suggested no signifi cant difference
between the rates of biliary injury and the use of routine cholangiography . They
found no protective effect of routine IOC with signifi cantly increased cost ($930
more) and slightly higher incidence in morbidity (7.3 vs. 6.8 %; p = 0.04). Routine
IOC was also associated with increased endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ( ERCP ) use (15.8 % vs. 12.7 % p <0.0001) and higher common bile duct
exploration (2.6 % vs. 1.6 %; p < 0.0001) [ 16 ]. This study is summarized in Table
27.3 .
A retrospective review by Buddingh et al. examined medical records 3 years
prior and following implementation of a routine IOC approach in a university hospital in The Netherlands. Four hundred twenty one patients underwent cholecystectomy with selective IOC prior to the start of the study and this was compared to 435
patients that underwent routine IOC after the study began. In this study, the policy
of routine IOC was deliberately not strictly enforced at fi rst. Instead, a period of
gradual introduction allowed the surgical team to become more familiar with the
technique. Thus, compliance with IOC in the rouine approach was relatively low
immediately after introduction. Six percent of the selective IOC group received
IOC, and only 60 % of the routine group had IOC both lower than expected limiting
this study. They did demonstrate, however, a signifi cant decrease in major BDI in
the routine group (0 % versus 1.9 %; p = 0.004) but no difference in total BDI (major
and minor). An increase in intraoperative management of common bile duct stones
was also noted (2.8 % vs. 0.7 %; p = 0.023) [ 17 ]. Similarly in Iran, Nickkholgh and
colleagues implemented a routine IOC approach and compared 1330 patients that
underwent routine IOC versus 800 patients that underwent selective IOC prior to
the start of the study. They found an increased rate of retained stones (2.8 % vs.
1.1 %; p = 0.01) with no signifi cant difference in BDI. These two studies are sum-
marized in Table 27.3 .
Literature focused on cost associated with routine intraoperative cholangiography has been sparse. One of the fi rst studies proposed was by Flum et al. in 2003.
S. Svoboda and B.L. Bello

317
They created decision analytic models to calculate costs and benefi ts of routine
IOC. They noted that it would cost approximately $100 more per each case.
However, they found that routine IOC would prevent 2.5 deaths for every 10,000
patients at a cost of $390,000 per life saved or $13,900/quality life-year (well below
the standard benchmark of <$50,000/quality life-year to be deemed cost-effective).
Cost per common bile duct injury avoided ranged from approximately $61,000 to
$87,100. These estimates do not consider the high price of litigation costs which
many argue that any cost of IOC is worthwhile [ 13 ]. Brown et al. designed another
decision model to examine patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis with possible
common bile duct stones including fi ve different strategies: (1) LC alone, (2) preoperative ERCP followed by LC, (3) LC with IOC ± common bile duct exploration ,
(4) LC followed by ERCP, (5) and LC with IOC ± postoperative ERCP. Across a
common bile duct stone probability range of 4–100 %, LC with IOC ± ERCP was
the most cost-effective [ 19 ].
Livingston et al. argued against routine IOC when cost and utilization were
examined. They reviewed the 2001 Nationwide Inpatient Survey database for IOC
utilization and associated charges. IOCs were associated with $706–739 additional
charges [ 20 ]. This is consistent with the increased cost of $930 of the previously
discussed NIS study [ 16 ]. Livingston projected a cost of $371,356 to prevent one
single bile duct injury by using a routine IOC approach [ 20 ].
Near Infrared Fluorescent Cholangiography
Fluorescence cholangiography is a feasible alternative to contrast-dye cholangiography and may have a cost benefi t although reduction in bile duct injury has not
been proven. A study by Schools and colleagues demonstrated safety and feasibility
of near-infrared fl uorescence cholangiography (NIRF-C) in patients receiving indocyanine green (ICG) just after induction of anesthesia in 15 patients. Fluorescence
imaging was performed with no adverse reactions to the injected ICG with identifi cation of the cystic duct in an average of 23 min [ 21 ]. A prospective study that
demonstrated the feasibility of NIRF-C was done recently. Eighty two patients
underwent elective LC with NIRF-C with successful identifi cation of the cystic duct
in 95.1 %, common bile duct in 76.8 % and common hepatic duct in 69.5 %. This
was followed by IOC with successful identifi cation of the cystic duct in 72.0 %,
common bile duct in 75.6 % and common hepatic duct in 74.3 %. The procedure
times were signifi cantly different with NIRF-C and IOC (1.9 min vs. 11.8 min;
p < 0.001). There were no adverse events [ 22 ].
A recent study examined cost analysis and effectiveness of fl uorescent cholangiography . Identifi cation with fl uorescence was successful in 100 % of 43 patients and
signifi cantly less costly than IOC ($14.10 vs. $778.43; p < 0.0001), and was faster
than IOC (0.71 vs. 7.15 min; p < 0.0001) [ 23 ]. Prevot and colleagues found in a
prospective cohort of 23 patients that identifi cation of the biliary tract was more
effective with fl uorescence imaging than with IOC after dissection. Analyzability
27 Routine or Selective Cholangiography for Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
