Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gallbladder damage control: compromised procedure for compromised patients

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to analyze a population-based database for (1) recent 9-year trends in utilization of partial cholecystectomy (PC), laparoscopic PC, and trocar cholecystostomy (TC), (2) demographics, associated diagnoses, and hospital characteristics, and (3) relevant inpatient outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective cohort analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) files from 2000 to 2008 was performed. For the purposes of the study, gallbladder damage control was defined as PC, laparoscopic PC, and TC.

Results

A national estimate of 10,872 gallbladder damage control cases was obtained. Procedures performed included PC (47.8 %), laparoscopic PC (27.2 %), TC (25.3 %), and intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) (19.7 %). A total of 1,479 (13.6 %) postoperative complications were identified, including pulmonary complications (4.3 %), hemorrhage/hematoma/seroma (3.4 %), and accidental puncture or laceration during procedure (3.3 %). Common bile duct injury occurred in 3.3 % overall. Hospital types included nonteaching (82.1 %) and urban (67.8 %), with regional variations of 42.1 % from the South and 45.2 % from the West. Inpatient outcomes included mean length of stay of 11.4 (0.16 SEM) days, mean total hospital charge of $71,296.69 ($1,106.03 SEM), 7.4 % mortality, and 16.8 % discharge to skilled nursing facility. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified independent risk variables for common bile duct injury: teaching hospitals (OR = 1.517, CI = 1.155–1.991, P = 0.003). IOC (OR = 2.030, CI = 1.590–2.591, P < 0.001) was a commonly associated procedure in the setting of common bile duct injury.

Conclusion

Various circumstances may require gallbladder damage control with PC and TC. Postoperative complications and common bile duct injury remain significantly high despite limited resection, and the teaching status of the hospital is associated with CBD injury. High morbidity and mortality of gallbladder damage control may reflect both the compromised nature of the procedures and multiple comorbidities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strasberg SM, Hertyl M, Soper N (1995) Analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sawyers JL (1996) Current status of conventional (open) cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 223:1–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bornman PC, Terblanche J (1985) Subtotal cholecystectomy: for the difficult gallbladder in portal hypertension and cholecystitis. Surgery 98:1–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bickel A, Lunsky I, Mizrahi S, Stamler B (1990) Modified subtotal cholecystectomy for high risk patients. Can J Surg 33:13–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Douglas PR, Ham JM (1990) Partial cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg 60:595–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schein M (1991) Partial cholecystectomy in the emergency treatment of acute cholecystitis in the compromised patient. J R Coll Surg 36:295–297

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cottier DJ, McKay C, Anderson JR (1991) Subtotal cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 78:1326–1328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ibrarullah MD, Kacker LK, Sikora SS et al (1993) Case report: partial cholecystectomy—safe and effective. HPB Surg 7:61–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Maudar KK (1996) Evaluation of surgical options in difficult gall bladder stone disease. J Indian Med Assoc 94:138–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Subramaniasivam N, Ananthakrishan N, Kate V et al (1996) Partial cholecystectomy in elective and emergency gall bladder surgery in the high risk patients—a viable and safe option in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Gastroenterol 17:49–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Katsohis C, Prousalidis J, Tzardinoglou E et al (1996) Subtotal cholecystectomy. HPB Surg 9:133–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bickel A, Shtamler B (1993) Technical report: laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Surg 3:365–367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Crosthwaite G, McKay C, Anderson JR (1995) Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy. J R Coll Surg 40:20–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ransom KJ (1998) Laparoscopic management of acute cholecystitis with subtotal cholecystectomy. Am Surg 64:955–957

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chowbey PK, Sharma A, Khullar R et al (2000) Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a review of 56 procedures. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 10:31–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Beldi G, Glattli A (2003) Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy for severe cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 17:1437–1439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Jani K et al (2003) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients: the role of subtotal cholecystectomy and its variants. J Am Coll Surg 203:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Satorras AM, Villanueva L, Vazquez J et al (2006) Acute cholecystitis secondary to recurrent cholelithiasis after subtotal cholecystectomy. Cir Esp 79:51–53

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yigit T, Mentes O, Eryilmaz M et al (2007) Stump resections resulting from incomplete operations. Am Surg 73:75–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2007) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/. Accessed 17 May 2007

  21. Feanny MA, Scott BG, Mattox KL et al (2005) Impact of the 80-hour work week on resident emergency operative experience. Am J Surg 190:947–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Helling TS, Khandelwal A (2008) The challenges of resident training in complex hepatic, pancreatic, and biliary procedures. J Gastrointest Surg 12:153–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Visser BC, Parks RW, Garden OJ (2008) Open cholecystectomy in the laparoscopic era. Am J Surg 195:108–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Flum DR, Dellinger EP, Cheadle A et al (2003) Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. J Am Med Assoc 289:1639–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Drs. Justin Lee, Peter Miller, Reza Kermani, Haisar Dao, and Kevin O’Donnell have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02135, USA

    Justin Lee, Peter Miller, Reza Kermani, Haisar Dao & Kevin O’Donnell

  2. 24A Winship Street, Boston, MA, 02135, USA

    Justin Lee

Authors
  1. Justin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reza Kermani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haisar Dao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin O’Donnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, J., Miller, P., Kermani, R. et al. Gallbladder damage control: compromised procedure for compromised patients. Surg Endosc 26, 2779–2783 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2278-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2278-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation