Dataset Information

Gallbladder adhesion degree as predictor of conversion surgery, common bile duct injury and resurgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The gold-standard treatment for cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, has remarkably variable outcomes and conversion rates. We investigated the gallbladder adhesion degree as a predictor of conversion surgery, common bile duct injury, and resurgery.

Methods

We reviewed 157 medical records and video recordings of laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients with cholelithiasis with or without cholecystitis at three hospitals in Yogyakarta, Indonesia from January 2016 to December 2018. The degree of gallbladder adhesion is classified into 4 categories: no adhesion, <50% adhesion, 50%-buried GB, and completely buried GB.

Results

One hundred fifty seven patients were involved in this study, of whom 58 were males and 99 females with average age 49.2. Eighty-one patients out of 157 patients (51.6%) had gallbladder adhesion comprising of 61/157 (38.9%) with <50% adhesion and 20/157 (12.7%) 50%-buried GB. There is one incidence each of conversion surgery, CBD injury, and resurgery. The degree of GB adhesion has low degree of correlation with conversion surgery, CBD injury, and resurgery wirh r value of 0.156, 0.041, and 0.156 respectively. There is significant correlation between the degree of GB adhesion and conversion surgery and resurgery with p value of 0.032, and 0.032 respectively. There is no significant correlation between degree of GB adhesion and CBD injury with p value of 0.453.

Conclusion

The degree of GB adhesion has low degree of correlation with conversion, CBD injury and resurgery. This study also showed that patients with high degree of gallbladder adhesion are still eligible for laparoscopic procedure performed by an experienced surgeon.

SUBMITTER: Yuda Handaya A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346525 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stone extraction and papillotomy with subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy-the two-step approach-is the standard treatment of common bile duct stones in many countries. However, ERC is associated with a high risk of complications and more than half of patients require multiple ERCs. Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials find no major differences of the two-step approach in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative laparoscopic stone clearance-the one-step approach. Currently, there are insufficient data to ascertain superiority.MethodsThe preGallstep trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Eligible patients are patients with common bile duct stones (identified by magnetic resonance cholagiopancreatography), age 18 years or above with the possibility to perform both interventions within a reasonable time. We intent to randomise 150 participants allocated 1:1. The experimental intervention is the one-step approach. This consists of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The control intervention is the two-step approach which consists of ERC plus sphincterotomy (first step) and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (second step). Feasibility outcomes include the proportion of eligible patients not wanting to participate, reasons for rejection to participate, difficulties during the informed consent procedure, difficulties with randomisation, difficulties with data management, difficulties with blinding patient charts and forms and difficulties with maintaining blinding for the outcome assessors. The primary pilot outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one postoperative complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score grade II and above until 90 days after randomisation. This outcome will be used for a future sample size calculation of a larger pragmatic trial. Further, a range of clinical explorative outcomes will be assessed.DiscussionAs no sample size is estimated in this trial, there is a risk of wrongly assessing the effect on the patient-related outcome. The surgical procedures cannot be blinded. However, blinding will be employed in all other aspects of the trial, including the establishment of a blinded outcome adjudication committee with three independent assessors. Heterogeneity in screening, randomisation, diagnostics, treatment procedures, interventions and follow-up across trial sites may cause challenges in conducting a larger pragmatic trial. To monitor inter-site differences, we have implemented a central data monitoring scheme.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT04801238 , Registered on 16 March 2021.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5-700) vs. 50 (10-1800) ml; p?=?0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p?=?0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3-78) vs. 8.5 (4.5-74) days; p?=?0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1-7) vs. 3 (2-24) days; p?=?0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60-480) vs. 180 (41-330) minutes; p?=?0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien's classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p?=?0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (??2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder?+?bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p?=?0.000, p?=?0.000, and p?=?0.000, respectively). CONCLUSION:LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (<?2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.