Is Routine Intraoperative Cholangiogram Necessary in the Twenty-First Century? A National View
- 690 Downloads
Intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) can define biliary ductal anatomy. Routine IOC has been proposed previously. However, current surgeon IOC utilization practice patterns and outcomes are unclear.
Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2004–2009 was queried for patients with acute biliary disease undergoing cholecystectomy (CCY). Analyses only included surgeons performing ≥10 CCY/year. We dichotomized surgeons into a routine IOC group vs. selective. Outcomes included bile duct injury, complications, mortality, length of stay, and cost.
Of the nonweighted patients, 111,815 underwent CCY. A total of 4,740 actual surgeon yearly volumes were examined. On average, each surgeon performed 23.6 CCYs and 7.9 IOCs annually, using IOC in 33 % of cases. The routine IOC group used IOC for 96 % of cases, whereas selective IOC group used IOC ∼25 % of the time. Routine IOC surgeons had no difference in mortality (0.4 %) or rate of bile duct injury (0.25 vs. 0.26 %), but higher overall complications (7.3 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.04). Patients of routine IOC surgeons received more additional procedures and incurred higher costs.
Routine IOC does not decrease the rate of bile duct injury, but is associated with significant added cost. Surgeons’ routine use of IOC is correlated with increased rates of postsurgical procedures, and is associated with increased overall complications. These data suggest routine IOC may not improve outcomes.
KeywordsIntraoperative cholangiogram Cholecystectomy Cost assessment Bile duct injury Complications and mortality
NIH/NCRR Clinical and Translational Science Award Pilot, American Cancer Society MRSG-10-003-01, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Early Career Award (all to JFT), the Linda J. Verville Foundation and Clinical Scholar Award (ERC).
- 1.Division of Vital Statistics, National Center of Vital Statistics. Number, rate and standard effort at all-listed surgical and non-surgical procedure for discharges from short-stay hospitals, by selected procedure categories: United States, 2007.Google Scholar
- 4.Gigot, J., Etienne, J., Aerts, R., Wibin, E., Dallemagne, B., Deweer, F., Fortunati, D., Legrand, M., Vereecken, L., Doumont, J., Van Reepinghen, P., and Beguin, C. The dramatic reality of biliary tract injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An anonymous multicenter Belgian survey of 65 patients. Surg Endosc 11: 1171–1178, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Machado, N. O. (2011) Biliary complications postlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: mechanism, preventive measures, and approach to management: a review. Diagn Ther Endosc. DOI: 10.1155/2011/967017Google Scholar
- 9.de Reuver, P. R., Sprangers, M. A., Rauws, E. A., Lameris, J. S., Busch, O. R., van Gulik, T. M., and Gouma, D. J. Impact of bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy on quality of life: a longitudinal study after multidisciplinary treatment. Endoscopy 40: 637–643, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). 1998–2009.Google Scholar
- 19.Department of Health and Human Services. ICD-9-CM international classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification, sixth edition. DHHS, Health Care Financing Administration (Ed.), Washington DC: 2010.Google Scholar
- 23.9.2 S. S. R. SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 User’s guide, second Edition. 2012.Google Scholar
- 34.Khan, S., Zadeh, R., and Macfie, J. Letter 4: randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer (Br J Surg 2009; 96: 982–989). Br J Surg 96: 1494–1495; author reply 1496, 2009.Google Scholar
- 35.Z’Graggen, K., Wehrli, H., Metzger, A., Buehler, M., Frei, E., and Klaiber, C. Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Switzerland. A prospective 3-year study of 10,174 patients. Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 12: 1303–1310, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar