Abstract
Background
Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) or intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) can be used for visualisation of the biliary tract during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare use of LUS with IOC.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched (last update: April 2024). PICO: P = patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease; I = intervention: LUS; C = comparison: IOC; O = outcomes: mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, operation time including imaging time. Included articles were critically appraised using checklists. Conclusions were based on studies without major risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.
Results
Sixteen non-randomised studies met the PICO. Two before/after studies (594 versus 807 patients) contributed to conclusions regarding mortality (no events; very low certainty evidence), bile duct injury (1 versus 0 events; very low certainty evidence), retained gallstone (2 versus 2 events; very low certainty evidence), and conversion to open cholecystectomy (6 versus 21 events; risk ratio: 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.15–0.95); I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Seven additional studies, using intra-individual comparisons, contributed to conclusions regarding procedural failure; risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.70–1.78; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported operation time. Mean imaging time for LUS and IOC, reported in 12 studies, was 4.8‒10.2 versus 10.9‒17.9 min (mean difference: − 7.8 min (95% confidence interval: − 9.3 to − 6.3); I2 = 95%; moderate certainty evidence).
Conclusion
It is uncertain whether there is any difference in mortality/bile duct injury/retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC, but LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with shorter imaging time.
Graphical Abstract
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00464-024-10979-5/MediaObjects/464_2024_10979_Figa_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In symptomatic gallstone disease, the established treatment is to remove the gallbladder, nowadays preferably by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is the most frequently used method during cholecystectomy to visualise the biliary anatomy and to ensure that there are no residual stones in the biliary tract. Indeed, residual stones postoperatively imply a risk of developing jaundice, pancreatitis, and sepsis. IOC is also useful for intraoperative discovery of bile duct injuries, a dreaded complication that occurs in about 0.5% of the surgeries [1]; long-term bile duct injury-related mortality has been reported to range between 1.8% and 4.6%, and such injuries may also contribute to impaired quality of life [2].
Compared with IOC, laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is a less invasive procedure for visualisation of the bile ducts; access to the biliary tract or injection of contrast medium is normally not needed. In addition, LUS has the advantage of providing an overview of adjacent anatomical structures, for instance, the cystic and hepatic arteries. In severe cholecystitis, this may be of particular value [3]. Other advantages of LUS include that visualisation can easily be repeated throughout the procedure and it does not involve ionising radiation. As with all forms of ultrasound examinations, however, a disadvantage of LUS is that it is user-dependent and requires training. Meta-analyses show that the sensitivity and the specificity for the detection of gallstones in the biliary tract by LUS is comparable to that of IOC [4, 5]. As far as we are aware, patient effects of using LUS compared with IOC have not previously been reviewed. This systematic review was undertaken to shed light on this issue.
Methods
This systematic review was primarily conducted within a health technology assessment (HTA), intended to provide information for regional evidence-based decision-making and also including, for instance, the number of patients at issue in the region as well as economic aspects [6]. In the present study, we report the systematic review based on an updated literature search.
Our systematic review was performed according to the established routines at the regional HTA centre in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, reported according to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [7], and preregistered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42023404758).
The aim was defined in the PICO format. Accordingly, participants (P) were patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of gallstone disease. The intervention (I) was LUS, and the comparison (C) was IOC. Outcomes (O) were mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, and operation time including imaging time. Publications were restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies with ≥ 100 patients in each comparison group. Languages were restricted to English, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian.
Literature search and study selection
Two authors (J.G., T.S.) performed systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science (December 15th, 2022), with a subsequent update in all databases (April 29th, 2024). Reference lists of relevant articles were scrutinised for additional references. The websites of the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) and other local HTA centres were visited. To identify ongoing studies, a search in Clinicaltrials.gov was performed (March 20th, 2023). Search strategies are provided in the supplemental material.
Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to exclude publications that clearly did not meet the PICO criteria. Abstracts obtained in the first systematic search were screened using the Rayyan tool [8]. Discrepancies were resolved in consensus. For the remaining publications, the full texts were retrieved and were independently assessed by at least two authors, after which all authors in the first systematic search, and two authors in the search update, in consensus finally decided on inclusion or exclusion according to PICO. For articles excluded in consensus, after full-text reading, reasons for exclusion were recorded.
Data extraction and study assessments
For included studies, data on design and methodology were extracted, as well as data regarding participant and intervention characteristics. Number of events or measures of effect were also extracted. Data were independently extracted by two authors, with discrepancies resolved in consensus. We did not request additional data from the study investigators. The outcome procedural failure was defined as the opposite to procedural success, i.e., (i) that the imaging technique could not be applied, or (ii) that the biliary tree could not be visualised from confluence of the hepatic ducts to the pancreatic ampulla. Conversions to open surgery were not included in the analysis of procedural failure.
At least two authors independently appraised the included studies using checklists used by HTA-centrum, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, modified from checklists developed by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services [9]. Consensus discussions were then performed to decide on the domains directness, study limitations (risk of bias), and precision, in the categories + (plus; no or minor problems), ? (question mark; some problems), and – (minus; major problems). The assessments were performed at the outcome level. As decided beforehand, studies without major risk of bias formed the basis for the conclusions. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [10].
Statistical analysis
When two or more studies provided poolable data, we performed random effects meta-analyses using the software Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) to obtain the risk ratio (RR), the risk difference, and the mean difference, along with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Regarding the outcome procedural failure, we required studies to report both application and visualisation failures to be included in the meta-analysis; otherwise, they were considered to have major study limitations regarding this outcome. Studies with inter- and intra-individual comparisons were considered adequate to pool regarding the outcomes procedural failure and operation time including imaging time.
Results
After removal of duplicates, the literature search identified 2837 unique publications, 16 of which were included in this systematic review (Fig. 1) [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Publications excluded after full-text reading, as well as the reasons for excluding them, are presented in Table S1.
Included studies are described in Table 1 and assessments underlying directness and risk of bias assessments clarified in Table S2; precision was considered in the GRADE process. Some of the studies included inter-individual comparisons [15, 16, 19, 26], whereas others reported intra-individual comparisons only [11,12,13,14, 17, 18, 20,21,22,23,24,25]. The studies were performed in the United States [11, 15, 18, 19, 22,23,24,25,26], France [13, 14], Switzerland [20, 21], Germany [12], Belgium [16], and China [17]. In several studies, one single surgeon performed LUS [15, 16, 19, 21, 24,25,26], one study included seven LUS-performing surgeons [13] and one study included three sites [23]. In the remaining studies, the number of LUS-performing surgeons was not reported [11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22]. LUS experience was reported in five studies, with five to 100 previous procedures required before data collection [13, 15, 21, 23, 25].
Conclusions on mortality, bile duct injuries, and retained gallstone were based on two before/after studies including 594 versus 807 patients in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively (Table 2) [15, 26]. Both studies had a follow-up of one month. In the GRADE process, starting from low certainty evidence as only non-randomised studies were available [10], we downgraded two steps because of very serious imprecision; the studies contained no or few events. In conclusion, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the risk of mortality, bile duct injuries, and retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC (GRADE ).
Regarding conversion to open cholecystectomy, the conclusion was also based on the two studies above (Table 2) [15, 26]. In all, 6 versus 21 events were reported, resulting in a pooled risk ratio of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.15–0.95; Fig. 2A), and a pooled risk difference of − 1.6 (95% CI: − 3.0 to − 0.2) percentage points. In the GRADE process, there was some uncertainty regarding directness as LUS is user-dependent and underlying evidence was restricted to single surgeon studies. Furthermore, there was uncertain precision as the confidence interval was wide. We did not consider these aspects sufficient for further downgrading. In conclusion, intraoperative LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open surgery, compared with IOC (GRADE ).
Procedural failure was reported in 15 studies, four of which including inter-individual comparisons [15, 16, 19, 26] and eleven providing intra-individual comparisons only [11,12,13,14, 17, 18, 20,21,22,23, 25]. In nine studies without major risk of bias (3184 unique patients), 275 versus 287 events were reported in the intervention (n = 2504) and control (n = 2699) groups, resulting in a pooled risk ratio of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.70–1.78; Fig. 2B), and a pooled risk difference of 1 (95% CI: − 4 to 5) percentage points. Six studies reported application and visualisation failures separately [11, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26]. For LUS overall, the distribution between application and visualisation failures was 35% and 65%, respectively. For IOC, the distribution was the opposite; 69% were application failures and 31% visualisation failures. In the GRADE process, we downgraded two steps because of very serious inconsistency; four studies showed statistically significant results, two of which favouring LUS [11, 12] and two IOC [13, 25]. Furthermore, two of these studies explicitly included more than one surgeon [12, 13], also with statistically significant results in opposite directions. In conclusion, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in procedural failure using LUS compared with IOC (GRADE ).
No studies provided results regarding operation time. Imaging time was reported in 12 studies, two of which made inter-individual [15, 26], and ten intra-individual [11,12,13,14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24], comparisons. No studies were assessed to have major risk of bias regarding this outcome. In all, the studies included 3,854 patients. Mean imaging time for LUS ranged from 4.8 to 10.2 min, whereas mean imaging time for IOC ranged from 10.9 to 17.9 min. A meta-analysis, including studies that provided mean values, as well as standard deviation or standard error of the mean, revealed a pooled mean difference of − 7.8 min (95% CI: − 6.3 to − 9.3) (Fig. 2C). In the GRADE process regarding imaging time, a subset of the outcome operation time, there was no indirectness or inconsistency; all studies reported statistically significant reductions, between four and eleven minutes, and several surgeons/sites were involved in some studies. We upgraded one step because of a large magnitude of effect; dichotomisation of imaging time, e.g. ,< / ≥ 10 min, would likely result in a risk ratio < 0.5/ > 2 favouring LUS, i.e., the limit for upgrading [10]. In conclusion, no studies provide information regarding the operation time, but LUS is probably associated with shorter imaging time compared with IOC (GRADE ).
The search in Clinicaltrials.gov resulted in 100 records, none of which fulfilled our PICO.
Discussion
This systematic review shows that no conclusions can be drawn regarding potential effects of LUS versus IOC during laparoscopic cholecystectomy with regard to mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, and procedural failure. LUS may, however, be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with a shorter imaging time.
Regarding the possibly lower conversion rate for LUS, it may be speculated that an underlying factor could be that LUS allows visualisation of adjacent anatomical structures. This aspect may be particularly important in the presence of severe inflammation. Indeed, it has been argued that using LUS repeatedly during dissection, for visualisation of the biliary tract as well as the adjacent anatomical structures, could be particularly helpful during arduous surgery, for instance in case of acute or chronic cholecystitis, to avoid conversion to open cholecystectomy [27].
Operation time, the preferred time-related outcome from an overall perspective including both the imaging procedure per se and the surgical procedure, was not reported in any of the included studies. For imaging time, however, our evidence synthesis shows that LUS, on average, is associated with a 7.8-min shorter imaging time. In high-volume centres, such a procedure-related consequence, corresponding to almost 10% of the 83- to 89-min total surgery time [28], can be relevant, in particular if IOC is performed routinely and the operation theatre then can be used for an additional operation. In Sweden, IOC is undertaken or attempted in 86.4% of all cholecystectomies [29]. If imaging is only used in selective cases, on the other hand, provided that LUS expertise is available, the limited time required may lower the threshold for bile duct visualisation. Another method of interest for time-saving reasons is intraoperative fluorescence cholangiography (IFC), which has been associated with shorter operation time, but is also described to have limitations regarding the visualisation of gallstones [30, 31].
Interestingly, despite 15 non-randomised studies whereof nine were without major risk of bias, it is uncertain whether there are any differences between LUS and IOC regarding procedural failure. The wide range in results regarding this outcome, including the fact that two studies favoured LUS [11, 12] and two IOC [13, 25], may reflect the intrinsic difficulties associated with each procedure. LUS, with procedural failures ranging from 2 to 15%, has the limitation of being user-dependent, the ampulla being a particularly challenging area for visualisation. To facilitate interpretation, simultaneous infusion of sodium chloride could be useful, a procedure used in several studies, either into the bile ducts [24, 32] or into the right upper quadrant [3, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 33, 34]. IOC, on the other hand, was more often subjected to application than visualisation failures. In this context, it may be of interest to note that compared with IOC, IFC has been reported favourable regarding visualisation of the common hepatic duct [35].
The ultrasonography technique has evolved over time. For instance, a high sonographic frequency can be applied to facilitate interpretation. Although our forest plot on procedural failure visually suggests a correlation between year of study and result, there was no obvious corresponding correlation with MHz applied. Indeed, most studies reporting this technical detail used 7.5 MHz [12, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26] and no study used more than 10 MHz, compared with presently available equipment where 12 MHz is often used for visualisation of the biliary tree. For IOC, it can be speculated that the wide range of procedural failures, from 1.6% to 23%, may reflect the difference between routine and selective use; IOC performed in selective cases may be associated with less experience, and thus more challenges in the cannulation step, in particular when the cystic duct is obliterated because of inflammation, fibrosis, or gallstone. Furthermore, during challenging IOC, cystic duct gallstones can be flushed into the common bile duct.
Although our systematic review identified 16 non-randomised studies that met the PICO, only four included inter-individual comparisons and only two of these, including 1,405 patients were without major risk of bias. In addition, LUS was performed by a single surgeon in these studies, an aspect that may be of importance for the generalisability of the results. The evidence base regarding the comparison LUS versus IOC in laparoscopic cholecystectomy can therefore be considered very restricted, in particular regarding rare patient events such as postoperative deaths, bile duct injuries, and retained gallstones.
In conclusion, as this systematic review shows that no conclusions can be drawn regarding LUS versus IOC with respect to critical patient outcomes and yet with promising results regarding conversions to open cholecystectomy and imaging time, further well-designed studies can be considered highly warranted.
References
Rystedt JML, Wiss J, Adolfsson J, Enochsson L, Hallerbäck B, Johansson P, Jönsson C, Leander P, Österberg J, Montgomery A (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
Schreuder AM, Busch OR, Besselink MG, Ignatavicius P, Gulbinas A, Barauskas G, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM (2020) Long-term impact of iatrogenic bile duct injury. Dig Surg 37(1):10–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496432
Deziel DJ (2022) Laparoscopic ultrasound for bile duct imaging during cholecystectomy: clinical impact in 785 consecutive cases. J Am Coll Surg 234(5):849–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000000111
Aziz O, Ashrafian H, Jones C, Harling L, Kumar S, Garas G, Holme T, Darzi A, Zacharakis E, Athanasiou T (2014) Laparoscopic ultrasonography versus intra-operative cholangiogram for the detection of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Surg 12(7):712–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.05.038
Jamal KN, Smith H, Ratnasingham K, Siddiqui MR, McLachlan G, Belgaumkar AP (2016) Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiography in detection of common bile duct stones. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98(4):244–249. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0068
Edebo A, Andersson J, Gustavsson J, Jivegård L, Khan J, Ribokas D, Svanberg T, Wallerstedt SM (2024:136) Benefits and risks of using laparoscopic ultrasonography versus intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease. Health Technology Assessment, Region Västra Götaland
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
HTA-centrum Region Västra Götaland Sweden (2021) Checklist for non-randomised controlled studies [Granskningsmall icke-randomiserade studier med kontrollgrupp]. In: ed.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O’Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann HJ, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328(7454):1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
Barteau JA, Castro D, Arregui ME, Tetik C (1995) A comparison of intraoperative ultrasound versus cholangiography in the evaluation of the common bile duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 9(5):490–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00206833
Birth M, Ehlers KU, Delinikolas K, Weiser HF (1998) Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic ultrasonography using a flexible-tip ultrasound probe and intraoperative dynamic cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 12(1):30–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900587
Catheline J, Rizk N, Champault G (1999) A comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound versus cholangiography in the evaluation of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Ultrasound 10(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-8266(99)00028-2
Catheline JM, Turner R, Paries J (2002) Laparoscopic ultrasonography is a complement to cholangiography for the detection of choledocholithiasis at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 89(10):1235–1239. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02198.x
Halpin VJ, Dunnegan D, Soper NJ (2002) Laparoscopic intracorporeal ultrasound versus fluoroscopic intraoperative cholangiography: after the learning curve. Surg Endosc 16(2):336–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-8325-1
Hublet A, Dili A, Lemaire J, Mansvelt B, Molle G, Bertrand C (2009) Laparoscopic ultrasonography as a good alternative to intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of prospective study. Acta Chir Belg 109(3):312–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2009.11680431
Li JW, Feng B, Wu L, Wang ML, Lu AG, Zang L, Mao ZH, Dong F, Zheng MH (2009) Intraoperative cholangiography in combination with laparoscopic ultrasonography for the detection of occult choledocholithiasis. Med Sci Monit 15(9):Mt126-130
Machi J, Tateishi T, Oishi AJ, Furumoto NL, Oishi RH, Uchida S, Sigel B (1999) Laparoscopic ultrasonography versus operative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: review of the literature and a comparison with open intraoperative ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg 188(4):360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00313-5
Perry KA, Myers JA, Deziel DJ (2008) Laparoscopic ultrasound as the primary method for bile duct imaging during cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22(1):208–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9558-4
Röthlin M (1996) Intraoperative sonography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Five Years of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Reappraisal 22:144–149
Röthlin MA, Schöb O, Schlumpf R, Largiadèr F (1996) Laparoscopic ultrasonography during cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 83(11):1512–1516. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800831107
Siperstein A, Pearl J, Macho J, Hansen P, Gitomirsky A, Rogers S (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic ultrasonography and fluorocholangiography in 300 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13(2):113–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900917
Stiegmann GV, Soper NJ, Filipi CJ, McIntyre RC, Callery MP, Cordova JF (1995) Laparoscopic ultrasonography as compared with static or dynamic cholangiography at laparoscopic cholecystectomy A prospective multicenter trial. Surg Endosc 9(12):1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00190157
Thompson DM, Arregui ME, Tetik C, Madden MT, Wegener M (1998) A comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound with digital fluorocholangiography for detecting choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 12(7):929–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900749
Tranter SE, Thompson MH (2003) A prospective single-blinded controlled study comparing laparoscopic ultrasound of the common bile duct with operative cholangiography. Surg Endosc 17(2):216–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8911-x
Wu JS, Dunnegan DL, Soper NJ (1998) The utility of intracorporeal ultrasonography for screening of the bile duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2(1):50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1091-255x(98)80103-0
Dili A, Bertrand C (2017) Laparoscopic ultrasonography as an alternative to intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Gastroenterol 23(29):5438–5450. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i29.5438
Enochsson L, Thulin A, Osterberg J, Sandblom G, Persson G (2013) The Swedish registry of gallstone surgery and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks): A nationwide registry for quality assurance of gallstone surgery. JAMA Surg 148(5):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1221
Rystedt J, Lindell G, Montgomery A (2016) Bile duct injuries associated with 55,134 cholecystectomies: treatment and outcome from a national perspective. World J Surg 40(1):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3281-4
Quaresima S, Balla A, Palmieri L, Seitaj A, Fingerhut A, Ursi P, Paganini AM (2020) Routine near infra-red indocyanine green fluorescent cholangiography versus intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-matched comparison. Surg Endosc 34(5):1959–1967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06970-0
Boogerd LSF, Handgraaf HJM, Huurman VAL, Lam HD, Mieog JSD, van der Made WJ, van de Velde CJH, Vahrmeijer AL (2017) The best approach for laparoscopic fluorescence cholangiography: overview of the literature and optimization of dose and dosing time. Surg Innov 24(4):386–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350617702311
Hashimoto M, Matsuda M, Watanabe G (2010) Intraoperative ultrasonography for reducing bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 57(101):706–709
Falcone RA Jr, Fegelman EJ, Nussbaum MS, Brown DL, Bebbe TM, Merhar GL, Johannigman JA, Luchette FA, Davis K Jr, Hurst JM (1999) A prospective comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound vs intraoperative cholangiogram during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13(8):784–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901099
Luo Y, Yang T, Yu Q, Zhang Y (2019) Laparoscopic ultrasonography versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in laparoscopic surgery for symptomatic cholelithiasis and suspected common bile duct stones. J Gastrointest Surg 23(6):1143–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3949-9
Lim SH, Tan HTA, Shelat VG (2021) Comparison of indocyanine green dye fluorescent cholangiography with intra-operative cholangiography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 35(4):1511–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08164-5
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg. This study did not receive any external funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AE, JA, and DR conceived the study, and LJ and SMW designed it. JG and TS performed the literature searches. All authors took part in the process of including and excluding articles. AE and SMW extracted data from the included studies, which were checked by JA, DR, and LJ. AE, JA, LJ, DR, and SMW assessed the study quality. SMW performed the meta-analyses. AE and SMW drafted the manuscript and all authors revised ii for intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Anders Edebo, John Andersson, Joss Gustavsson, Lennart Jivegård, Therese Svanberg, and Susanna M Wallerstedt have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Darius Ribokas is the director of a course that is provided within public healthcare regarding intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound and safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy and has no other conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ethical approval
This systematic review and meta-analysis does not require ethical approval.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Edebo, A., Andersson, J., Gustavsson, J. et al. Benefits and risks of using laparoscopic ultrasonography versus intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10979-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10979-5