SAGES expert Delphi consensus: critical factors for safe surgical practice in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
- 1.2k Downloads
Although it has been 25 years since the introduction of laparoscopy to cholecystectomy, outcomes remain largely unchanged, with rates of bile duct injury higher in the modern age than in the era of open surgery. The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force (SCTF) initiative seeks to encourage a culture of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and reduce biliary injury. An expert consensus study was conducted to identify interventions thought to be most effective in pursuit of this goal.
An initial list of items for safer practice in LC was identified by the SCTF through a nominal group technique (NGT) process. These were put forward to 407 SAGES committee members in two-stage electronically distributed Delphi surveys. Consensus was achieved if at least 80 % of respondents ranked an item as 4 or 5 on a Likert scale of importance (1–5). Additionally, respondents ranked five top areas of importance for the following domains: training, assessment, and research.
Thirty-nine initial items were identified through NGT. Response rates for each Delphi round were 40.2 and 34 %, respectively. Final consensus was achieved on 15 items, the majority of which related to non-technical factors in LC. Key domains for training, assessment, and research were identified. Critical view of safety was deemed most important for overall safety, as well as training and assessment of LC. Intraoperative cholangiography was identified as an additional priority area for future research.
Consensus items to progress surgical practice, training, assessment, and research have been identified, to promote safe practice and improve patient outcomes in LC.
KeywordsCholecystectomy Patient safety Consensus Expert
Rajesh Aggarwal is a consultant for Applied Medical. Robert D. Fanelli is a consultant for EndoGastric Solutions and Cook Surgical, Inc. All other authors declare no financial ties or conflicts of interest.
- 3.Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18(4):CD006231Google Scholar
- 7.The Southern Surgeons Club (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078Google Scholar
- 13.Navez B, Ungureanu F, Michiels M, Claeys D, Muysoms F, Hubert C, Vanderveken M, Detry O, Detroz B, Closset J, Devos B, Kint M, Navez J, Zech F, Gigot JF, Belgian Group for Endoscopic S, the H, Pancreatic Section of the Royal Belgian Society of S (2012) Surgical management of acute cholecystitis: results of a 2-year prospective multicenter survey in Belgium. Surg Endosc 26:2436–2445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bouras G, Burns EM, Howell AM, Bagnall NM, Lee H, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2014) Systematic review of the impact of surgical harm on quality of life after general and gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg 260(6):975–983Google Scholar
- 17.Pucher PH, Aggarwal R, Qurashi M, Darzi A (2014) Meta-analysis of the effect of postoperative in-hospital morbidity on long-term patient survival. Br J Surg 101(12):1499–1508Google Scholar
- 21.Berci G, Hunter J, Morgenstern L, Arregui M, Brunt M, Carroll B, Edye M, Fermelia D, Ferzli G, Greene F, Petelin J, Phillips E, Ponsky J, Sax H, Schwaitzberg S, Soper N, Swanstrom L, Traverso W (2013) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: first, do no harm; second, take care of bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 27:1051–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Fletcher DR, Hobbs MS, Tan P, Valinsky LJ, Hockey RL, Pikora TJ, Knuiman MW, Sheiner HJ, Edis A (1999) Complications of cholecystectomy: risks of the laparoscopic approach and protective effects of operative cholangiography—a population-based study. Ann Surg 229:449–457PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Dalkey NC (1967) Delphi. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar