Abstract
Background
Exposure for open cholecystectomy entails lateral, caudal traction on the gallbladder infundibulum, which results in opening the angle between the cystic and hepatic ducts. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), as initially described, is done with cephalad traction on the gallbladder. We hypothesized LC exposure technique narrows the angle between the cystic and hepatic ducts, placing them at increased risk of injury.
Methods
Twenty-three patients had routine LC. Cystic duct cholangiography (IOC) was done with a flexible 5-Fr catheter via a percutaneous introducer placed anterior to the gallbladder. Exposure of Calot’s triangle was maintained with cephalad traction on the gallbladder fundus. IOC was repeated after allowing the organ to assume the anatomic position. The cholangiograms were inspected for significant differences, and the angle of the cystic to the hepatic duct (CDHD) was measured by a blinded radiologist.
Results
The mean angle of the cystic to hepatic duct was 30‡ ± 19‡ in the IOCs taken with cephalad traction on the gallbladder fundus vs 59‡ ± 22‡,P < 0.001, in the cholangiograms taken without traction. A filling defect at the cystic-hepatic duct junction was present in 39% of IOC taken with traction vs none without traction. The intrahepatic ducts were seen in all films without traction, whereas the intrahepatic ducts were not visualized in 13% of IOCs taken with traction.
Conclusions
From these data we conclude (1) extrahepatic biliary ducts may be at increased risk of injury during LC because of the exposure technique and (2) imaging bile ducts in the anatomic position may convey misleading information about the relative location of important structures. Optimal exposure for dissection of Calot’s triangle should utilize a second clamp on the infundibulum with lateral, caudal traction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asbun HJ, Rossi RL, Lowell JA, Munson JL (1993) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: mechanism of injury, prevention, and management. World J Surg 17: 547–552
Bernard HR, Hartman TW (1993) Complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 165: 533–535
The Soutern Surgeon’s Club (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324: 1073–1078
Crist DW, Gadacz TR (1993) Laparoscopic anatomy of the biliary tree. Surg Clin North Am 73: 785–798
Davidoff AM, Pappas TN, Murray EA, Hilleren DJ, Johnson RD, Baker ME, Newman GE, Cotton PB, Meyers WC (1992) Mechanisms of major biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 215: 196–202
Hunter J (1991) Avoidance of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 162: 71–76
Larson GM, Vitale GC, Casey J, Evans JS, Gilliam G, Heuser L, McGee G, Rao M, Scherm MJ, Voyles CR (1992) Multipractice analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 163: 221–226
Legrorreta AP, Silber JH, Costantino GN, Kobylinski RW, Zatz SL (1993) Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 270: 1429–1432
McIntyre RC Jr, Zoeter MA, Weil KC, Cohen MM (1992) Comparison of outcome and cost of open cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Surg 2: 143–147
Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Kerbl K (1994) Laparoscopic general surgery. N Engl J Med 330: 409–419
Soper NJ, Flye MW, Brunt LM, Stockman PT, Sicard GA, Picus D, Edmundowicz SA, Aliperti G (1993) Diagnosis and management of biliary complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 165: 663–669
Soper NJ, Stockman PT, Dunnegan DL, Ashley SW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the new “gold standard?” Arch Surg 127: 917–923
Steiner CA, Bass EB, Talamani MA, Pitt HA, Steinberg EP (1994) Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330: 403–408
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mclntyre, R.C., Bensard, D.D., Stiegmann, G.V. et al. Exposure for laparoscopic cholecystectomy dissection adversely alters biliary ductal anatomy. Surg Endosc 10, 41–43 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649910010
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649910010