Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve: what should we expect?

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the late 1980s was accompanied an increase in common bile duct (CBD) injuries. This retrospective analysis of 2,005 cholecystectomies performed at a single institution investigates the factors that have contributed to a record of zero CBD injuries in 1,674 consecutive LC.

Methods:

The medical records of 1,285 consecutive patients operated on from 7 July 1996 to 6 June 2003 were obtained. We also examined the peer review records of an additional 720 LC performed between 1 January 1990 and 7 July 1996.

Results:

There were no CBD injuries among 1,674 consecutive LC patients spanning the period since 1990. Of the 954 patients who underwent LC since 1996, six had a cystic duct leak and five had a duct of Luschka leak. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) was performed in 20.2% of cases (n = 193/954). Seventy of 157 patients who underwent cholangiography alone demonstrated one or more stones in the CBD (44.6%). In 40 patients (58.0%), endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) was uniformly successful in clearing intraoperatively identified stones. In36.2% of cases, the stones were removed via laparoscopic CBD exploration (CBDE) (n = 25). In 5.8% of positive cases, the stones were removed via open CBDE (n = 4). Among 761 patients who did not undergo IOC, seven patients (0.92%) returned to the hospital for retained stones. Three of these patients had elevated liver function tests (LFT) preoperatively (1.3%) and four had normal LFT (1.1%).

Conclusions:

Injuries of the CBD can be avoided by performing an extensive dissection of the triangle of Calot and by developing a critical view of the operative field to ensure the patient’s safety during LC. If all LFT are normal and IOC is not performed, the occurrence of clinically significant stones postoperatively is minimal; in this group, only four patients had retained stones. Thus, in the face of normal LFT, routine IOC is unnecessary for a low CBD injury rate, and a return to the hospital for retained bile duct stones is rarely required, regardless of the number of times ductal stones are found on routine cholangiography. This implies that the significance of the stones discovered at IOC is questionable in most cases, thereby providing an argument against routine cholangiography. Most discovered CBD stones can be treated by ERCP, thus obviating the need for the T-tube drainage associated with CBDE. The 21st century finds LC to be a mature and safe surgical procedure.

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.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adamsen S, Hansen OH, Funch-Jensen P, Schulze S, Stage JG, Wara P (1997) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective nationwide series J Am Coll Surg 184: 571–578

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bingener J, Richards ML, Schwesinger WH, Strodel WE, Sirinele KR (2003) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for elderly patients; gold standard for golden years? Arch Surg 138: 531–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, Fitzgerald E ,O’ Sullivan GC (2004) A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of cholodocholithiasis revisited Ann Surg 239: 28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Duensing RA, Williams RA, Collins JC, Wilson SE (2000) Common bile duct stone characteristics: correlation with treatment during laparoscopic cholecystectomy J Gastrointest Surg 4: 6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fatum M, Rojansky N (2001) Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001: 50–59

    Google Scholar 

  6. Flum DR, Koepsell T, Heagerty P, Sinanan M, Dellinger EP (2001) Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the use of intraoperative cholangiography: adverse outcome or preventable error? Arch Surg 136: 1287–1292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frangou C, (2004) Common bile duct injury leads to higher mortality than previously thought Gen Surg News 31: 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon L, (2003) Bile duct injuries: visual elusion or error in technique? Gen Surg News 30:(1), 30–32

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kama N, Kologlu M, Doganay M, Reis E, Atli M, Dolapci M (2001) A risk score for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy Am J Surg 181: 520–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. MacFayden BV Jr, Vecchio R, Ricardo AE, Mathis CR (1998) Bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the United States experience Surg Endosc 12: 315–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Melton GB, Lillemoe KD, Camerone JL, Sauter PA, Coleman J, Yeo CJ (2002) Major bile duct injuries associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effect of surgical repair on quality of life Ann Surg 235: 888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (1993) Am J Surg 165: 390–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Podnos YD, Gelfand DV, Dulkanchainun TS, Wilson SE, Cao S, Ji P, Ortiz JA, et al. (2001) Is intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy cost effective? Am J Surg 182: 663–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shea J, Healey M, Berlin J, Clarke JR, Malet PF, Staroscik RN, Schwartz JS, et al. (1996) Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis Ann Surg 224: 609–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Snow LL, Weinstein LS, Hannon JK, Lane DR (2001) Evaluation of operative cholangiography in 2043 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case for the selective operative cholangiogram Surg Endosc 15: 14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wright KD, Wellwood JM (1998) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy without operative cholangiography Br J Surg 85: 191–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Z’graggen K, Wehrli H, Metzger A, Buehler M, Frei E, Klaiber C (1998) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Switzerland: a prospective 3-year study of 10,174 patients. Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery Surg Endosc 12: 1303–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Schwaitzberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Misra, M., Schiff, J., Rendon, G. et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve: what should we expect?. Surg Endosc 19, 1266–1271 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8919-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8919-5

Key words:

Navigation