Skip to main content
Log in

Optimal technique for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and are the technique and the findings optimally recorded at our institution?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Limited evidence exists describing the optimum protocol for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Images saved during surgery often fail to highlight the necessary anatomical landmarks and documentation is variable. Our aim was to identify the key characteristics of an optimal IOC and evaluate current practice at our institution.

Methods

A literature search identified quality indicators for performing IOC and documenting key findings. A standardised proforma for scoring IOC was developed. Retrospective analysis was conducted of consecutive IOCs performed during elective LC. Visual documentation of seven anatomical landmarks on the captured IOC images and textual reporting in the operation note were assessed.

Results

One hundred IOCs were evaluated. Only 32 (34%) of captured images had all 7 landmarks present. All cases failed to document all seven landmarks. There was a significant difference between landmarks that could be identified on the captured images and their documentation.

Conclusions

This study suggests that IOC image capture of the key seven landmarks and their textual reporting in this cohort is sub-optimal. We believe IOC technique, minimal data set for reporting and image capture should be standardised to allow better communication of findings and facilitate meaningful comparative research relating to the subject.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morgenstern L (1992) Carl Langenbuch and the first cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 6(3):113–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen D (1997) Bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 11(2):133–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Servetus M, O'Malley CD, Fulton JF (1989) Christianismi restitutio and other writings: as translated by Charles Donald O'Malley, with commentary by John F. Fulton. The Classics of Medicine Library

  4. Gadacz TR, Talamini MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ (1990) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 70(6):1249–1262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rystedt JML, Wiss J, Adolfsson J, Enochsson L, Hallerback B, Johansson P et al (2021) Routine versus selective intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy: systematic review, meta-analysis and health economic model analysis of iatrogenic bile duct injury. BJS Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tornqvist B, Stromberg C, Persson G, Nilsson M (2012) Effect of intended intraoperative cholangiography and early detection of bile duct injury on survival after cholecystectomy: population based cohort study. BMJ 345:e6457. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e6457

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mortele KJ, Ros PR (2001) Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(2):389–394. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.2.1770389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cucchetti A, Peri E, Cescon M, Zanello M, Ercolani G, Zanfi C et al (2011) Anatomic variations of intrahepatic bile ducts in a European series and meta-analysis of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg Tract 15(4):623–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1447-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi JW, Kim TK, Kim KW, Kim AY, Kim PN, Ha HK et al (2003) Anatomic variation in intrahepatic bile ducts: an analysis of intraoperative cholangiograms in 300 consecutive donors for living donor liver transplantation. Korean J Radiol 4(2):85–90. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2003.4.2.85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sugrue WJ, Stewart RJ, Pascoe DL, Macbeth WA (1977) Operative cholangiography in two hundred consecutive cholecystectomies. N Z Med J 86(600):470–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rolfsmeyer ES, Bubrick MP, Kollitz PR, Onstad GR, Hitchcock CR (1982) The value of operative cholangiography. Surg Gynecol Obstet 154(3):369–371

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Corlette MB Jr, Schatzki S, Ackroyd F (1978) Operative cholangiography and overlooked stones. Arch Surg 113(6):729–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall RC, Sakiyalak P, Kim SK, Rogers LS, Webb WR (1973) Failure of operative cholangiography to prevent retained common duct stones. Am J Surg 125(1):51–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ashmore JD, Kane JJ, Pettit HS, Mayo HW Jr (1956) Experimental evaluation of operative cholangiography in relation to calculus size. Surgery 40(1):191–196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Machi J, Sigel B, Spigos DG, Beitler JC, Justin JR (1983) Critical factors in the image clarity of operative cholangiography. J Surg Res 35(6):480–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hur KB, Park YO, Rice RG, Min KS (1972) Use of a dye-dilution technic to demonstrate biliary calculi in the operative cholangiogram. Ann Surg 176(5):663–668

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hur KB, Rice RG, Hong SS (1963) Cholelithiasis in Koreans. Yonsei Med J 4:103–118. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.1963.4.1.103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roy PG, Soonawalla ZF, Grant HW (2009) Medicolegal costs of bile duct injuries incurred during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB (Oxford) 11(2):130–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2008.00023.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No grant support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca E. Barnett.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Rebecca E Barnett, Yousef Ibrahim, James Ansell, Rhys Thomas, Kimberly Da Costa and Ashraf Rasheed have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnett, R.E., Ibrahim, Y., Ansell, J. et al. Optimal technique for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and are the technique and the findings optimally recorded at our institution?. Surg Endosc 36, 8784–8789 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09301-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09301-y

Keywords

Navigation