Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How often do surgeons obtain the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The reported incidence (0.16–1.5 %) of bile duct injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is higher than during open cholecystectomy and has not decreased over time despite increasing experience with the procedure. The “critical view of safety” (CVS) technique may help to prevent BDI when certain criteria are met prior to division of any structures. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of practicing surgeons to the CVS criteria during LC and the impact of a training intervention on CVS identification.

Methods

LC procedures of general surgeons were video-recorded. De-identified recordings were reviewed by a blinded observer and rated on a 6-point scale using the previously published CVS criteria. A coaching program was conducted, and participating surgeons were re-assessed in the same manner.

Results

The observer assessed ten LC videos, each involving a different surgeon. The CVS was adequately achieved by two surgeons (20 %). The remaining eight surgeons (80 %) did not obtain adequate CVS prior to division of any structures, despite two surgeons dictating that they did; the mean score of this group was 1.75. After training, five participating surgeons (50 %) scored > 4, and the mean increased from 1.75 (baseline) to 3.75 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The CVS criteria were not routinely used by the majority of participating surgeons. Further, one-fourth of those who claimed to obtain the CVS did so inadequately. All surgeons who participated in training showed improvement during their post-assessment. Our findings suggest that education of practicing surgeons in the application of the CVS during LC can result in increased implementation and quality of the CVS. Pending studies with larger samples, our findings may partly explain the sustained BDI incidence despite increased experience with LC. Our study also supports the value of direct observation of surgical practices and subsequent training for quality improvement.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bilimoria KY, Chung J, Soper NJ (2013) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiograms, and common duct injuries. JAMA 310:801–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vettoretto N, Saronni C, Harbi A, Balestra L, Taglietti L, Giovanetti M (2011) Critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 15:322–325

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Soderlund C, Frozanpor F, Linder S (2005) Bile duct injuries at laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-institution prospective study. Acute cholecystitis indicates an increased risk. World J Surg 29:987–993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van de Sande S, Bossens M, Parmentier Y, Gigot JF (2003) National survey on cholecystectomy related bile duct injury–public health and financial aspects in Belgian hospitals–1997. Acta Chir Belg 103:168–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krahenbuhl L, Sclabas G, Wente MN, Schafer M, Schlumpf R, Buchler MW (2001) Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of biliary tract injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Switzerland. World J Surg 25:1325–1330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006229

    Google Scholar 

  7. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006231

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dekker SW, Hugh TB (2008) Laparoscopic bile duct injury: understanding the psychology and heuristics of the error. ANZ J Surg 78:1109–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237:460–469

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Strasberg SM, Brunt LM (2010) Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 211:132–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sanjay P, Fulke JL, Exon DJ (2010) ‘Critical view of safety’ as an alternative to routine intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute biliary pathology. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1280–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nijssen MA, Schreinemakers JM, Meyer Z, van der Schelling GP, Crolla RM, Rijken AM (2015) Complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a video evaluation study of whether the critical view of safety was reached. World J Surg 39:1798–1803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McKinley SK, Brunt LM, Schwaitzberg SD (2014) Prevention of bile duct injury: the case for incorporating educational theories of expertise. Surg Endosc 28:3385–3391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heistermann HP, Tobusch A, Palmes D (2006) Prevention of bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. “The critical view of safety”. Zentralbl Chir 131:460–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z, Baltatzi L, Dervenis C (2009) One thousand laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a single surgical unit using the “critical view of safety” technique. J Gastrointest Surg 13:498–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sanford DE, Strasberg SM (2014) A simple effective method for generation of a permanent record of the Critical View of Safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by intraoperative “doublet” photography. J Am Coll Surg 218:170–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Emous M, Westerterp M, Wind J, Eerenberg JP, van Geloven AA (2010) Registering the critical view of safety: photo or video? Surg Endosc 24:2527–2530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamashita Y, Kimura T, Matsumoto S (2010) A safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy depends upon the establishment of a critical view of safety. Surg Today 40:507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Flum DR, Cheadle A, Prela C, Dellinger EP, Chan L (2003) Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy and survival in medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 290:2168–2173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barbier L, Souche R, Slim K, Ah-Soune P (2014) Long-term consequences of bile duct injury after cholecystectomy. J Visc Surg 151:269–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study was provided through a Leading Edge Advanced Practice Topics (LEAPT) grant by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Authors’ contributions

Stefanidis was involved in study conception and design; Chintalapudi, Tobben, and Pimentel acquired the data; Anderson-Montoya, Oommen, and Stefanidis analyzed and interpreted the data; Chintalapudi, Oommen, and Stefanidis drafted the manuscript; Anderson-Montoya and Stefanidis critically revised the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas HealthCare System, 1025 Morehead Medical Dr., Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis & Bindhu Oommen

  2. Division of Quality, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Nikita Chintalapudi & Brittany Anderson-Montoya

  3. Carolinas Simulation Center, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis, Daniel Tobben & Manuel Pimentel

  4. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikita Chintalapudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brittany Anderson-Montoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bindhu Oommen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Tobben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manuel Pimentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Stefanidis.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dimitrios Stefanidis has received honoraria by WL Gore and Davol for teaching and research support by Ethicon Inc. that are unrelated to this project. Bindhu Oommen, Nikita Chintalapudi, Brittany Anderson-Montoya, Daniel Tobben, and Manuel Pimentel have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefanidis, D., Chintalapudi, N., Anderson-Montoya, B. et al. How often do surgeons obtain the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?. Surg Endosc 31, 142–146 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4943-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4943-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation