Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kumar versus Olsen cannulation technique for intraoperative cholangiography: a randomized trial

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is resistance to routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy because it prolongs surgery and may be experienced as cumbersome. An alternative instrument may help to reduce these drawbacks and lower the threshold for IOC. This trial compared the Kumar cannulation technique to the more commonly used Olsen clamp for IOC (KOALA trial; Dutch Trial Register NTR2582).

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized between IOC using the Kumar clamp and the Olsen clamp. Primary end points were the time that the IOC procedure took and its perceived ease as measured on a visual analog scale from 0 (impossible) to 10 (effortless). To detect a difference of 33 % in IOC time, a total sample size of 40 patients was required.

Results

Fifty-nine patients were randomized. Nine were excluded because of conversion to open cholecystectomy before the IOC procedure. Twenty-eight patients underwent IOC with the Kumar clamp and 22 with the Olsen clamp. The success rate was 23 (82.1 %) of 28 for the Kumar clamp and 19 (86.4 %) of 22 for the Olsen clamp (p > 0.999). The mean IOC time was 10 min 27 s ± 6 min 17 s using the Kumar clamp and 11 min 34 s ± 7 min 27 s using the Olsen clamp (p = 0.537). Surgeons graded the ease of the Kumar clamp as 6.8 ± 2.7 and the Olsen clamp as 6.8 ± 2.1 (p = 0.977).

Conclusions

IOC using the Kumar clamp was neither faster nor easier than using the Olsen clamp. Both clamps facilitated IOC in just over 10 min. Individual surgeon preference should dictate which clamp is used.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Connor S, Garden OJ (2006) Bile duct injury in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 93(2):158–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buddingh KT, Nieuwenhuijs VB, van Buuren L, Hulscher JB, de Jong JS, van Dam GM (2011) Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: a review of current and future patient safety interventions. Surg Endosc 25(8):2449–2461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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(4):449–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flum DR, Dellinger EP, Cheadle A, Chan L, Koepsell T (2003) Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. JAMA 289(13):1639–1644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buddingh KT, Hofker HS, ten Cate Hoedemaker HO, van Dam GM, Ploeg RJ, Nieuwenhuijs VB (2011) Safety measures during cholecystectomy: results of a nationwide survey. World J Surg 35(6):1235–1241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Xiong C (2005) Power and sample size for clinical trials when efficacy is required in multiple endpoints: application to an Alzheimer’s treatment trial. Clin Trials 2(5):387–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. El Shallaly G, Seow C, Sharp C, Mughrabi A, Nassar AH (2005) Intraoperative cholangiography time in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: timing the radiographer. Surg Endosc 19(10):1370–1372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khaira HS, Ridings PC, Gompertz RH (1999) Routine laparoscopic cholangiography: a means of avoiding unnecessary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9(1):17–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Piacentini F, Perri S, Pietrangeli F, Nardi M Jr, Dalla Torre A, Nicita A, Lotti R, Castaldo P, Gabbrielli F, Castiglia D, Citone G (2003) Intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: selective or routine? G Chir 24(4):123–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzman MD, Sharp K, Holcomb GW, Frexes-Steed M, Richards WO (1994) An alternative technique for laparoscopic cholangiography. Surg Endosc 8(8):927–930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar SS (1992) Laparoscopic cholangiography: a new method and device. J Laparoendosc Surg 2(5):247–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to all the patients and surgeons who participated in this study.

Disclosures

K. T. Buddingh, B. M. Bosma, B. Samaniego-Cameron, H. O ten Cate Hoedemaker, H. S. Hofker, G. M. van Dam, R. J. Ploeg, and V. B. Nieuwenhuijs have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. The instruments used in this trial were leased from Apgar A/S, Brøndby, Denmark. Neither restrictions nor prior insight were agreed upon regarding publication of the results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    K. Tim Buddingh, Ben M. Bosma, Brenda Samaniego-Cameron, Henk O. ten Cate Hoedemaker, H. Sijbrand Hofker, Gooitzen M. van Dam, Rutger J. Ploeg & Vincent B. Nieuwenhuijs

  2. Department of Surgery, Isala Klinieken, Postbus 10500, 8000 GM, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Vincent B. Nieuwenhuijs

Authors
  1. K. Tim Buddingh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben M. Bosma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brenda Samaniego-Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henk O. ten Cate Hoedemaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Sijbrand Hofker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gooitzen M. van Dam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rutger J. Ploeg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vincent B. Nieuwenhuijs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent B. Nieuwenhuijs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buddingh, K.T., Bosma, B.M., Samaniego-Cameron, B. et al. Kumar versus Olsen cannulation technique for intraoperative cholangiography: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 27, 957–963 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2540-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2540-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation