Dataset Information

Selective intraoperative cholangiography should be considered over routine intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Decades of debate surround the use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy. To the present day, the role of IOC is controversial as regards decreasing the rate of bile duct injury (BDI). We aimed to review and analyse the available literature on the benefits of IOC during cholecystectomy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed until 19 October 2020 in five databases using the following search keys: cholangiogra* and cholecystectomy. The primary outcomes were BDI and retained stone rate. To investigate the differences between the groups (routine IOC vs selective IOC and IOC vs no IOC), we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Of the 19,863 articles, 38 were selected and 32 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Routine IOC showed no superiority compared to selective IOC in decreasing BDI (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.66; 1.24). Comparing IOC and no IOC, no statistically significant differences were found in the case of BDI, retained stone rate, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay. We found an increased risk of conversion rate to open surgery in the no IOC group (RR = 0.64, CI 0.51; 0.78). The operation time was significantly longer in the IOC group compared to the no IOC group (WMD = 11.25 min, 95% CI 6.57; 15.93).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that IOC may not be indicated in every case, however, the evidence is very uncertain. Further good quality research is required to address this question.

SUBMITTER: Kovacs N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9485186 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selective intraoperative cholangiography should be considered over routine intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kovács Norbert N Németh Dávid D Földi Mária M Nagy Bernadette B Bunduc Stefania S Hegyi Péter P Bajor Judit J Müller Katalin Eszter KE Vincze Áron Á Erőss Bálint B Ábrahám Szabolcs S

Surgical endoscopy 20220707 10

<h4>Background</h4>Decades of debate surround the use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy. To the present day, the role of IOC is controversial as regards decreasing the rate of bile duct injury (BDI). We aimed to review and analyse the available literature on the benefits of IOC during cholecystectomy.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature search was performed until 19 October 2020 in five databases using the following search keys: cholangiogra* and cholecystectomy. ...[more]

PMID: 35794500

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntraoperative 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.MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsSixteen 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).ConclusionIt 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.

Project description:To assess the role of laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) as a substitute for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy.We present a MEDLINE and PubMed literature search, having used the key-words "laparoscopic intraoperative ultrasound" and "laparoscopic cholecystectomy". All relevant English language publications from 2000 to 2016 were identified, with data extracted for the role of LUS in the anatomical delineation of the biliary tract, detection of common bile duct stones (CBDS), prevention or early detection of biliary duct injury (BDI), and incidental findings during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Data for the role of LUS vs IOC in complex situations (i.e., inflammatory disease/fibrosis) were specifically analyzed.We report data from eighteen reports, 13 prospective non-randomized trials, 5 retrospective trials, and two meta-analyses assessing diagnostic accuracy, with one analysis also assessing costs, duration of the examination, and anatomical mapping. Overall, LUS was shown to provide highly sensitive mapping of the extra-pancreatic biliary anatomy in 92%-100% of patients, with more difficulty encountered in delineation of the intra-pancreatic segment of the biliary tract (73.8%-98%). Identification of vascular and biliary variations has been documented in two studies. Although inflammatory disease hampered accuracy, LUS was still advantageous vs IOC in patients with obscured anatomy. LUS can be performed before any dissection and repeated at will to guide the surgeon especially when hilar mapping is difficult due to fibrosis and inflammation. In two studies LUS prevented conversion in 91% of patients with difficult scenarios. Considering CBDS detection, LUS sensitivity and specificity were 76%-100% and 96.2%-100%, respectively. LUS allowed the diagnosis/treatment of incidental findings of adjacent organs. No valuable data for BDI prevention or detection could be retrieved, even if no BDI was documented in the reports analyzed. Literature analysis proved LUS as a safe, quick, non-irradiating, cost-effective technique, which is comparatively well known although largely under-utilized, probably due to the perception of a difficult learning curve.We highlight the advantages and limitations of laparoscopic ultrasound during cholecystectomy, and underline its value in difficult scenarios when the anatomy is obscured.

Project description:BackgroundDespite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete.MethodsAn International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews-registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy "intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy." Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out.ResultsOf 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%-96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80-3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65-1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78-1.06, P value = .23).ConclusionThe use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard surgical approach in the treatment of cholelithiasis. Diverse surgical techniques and different imaging modalities have been described to evaluate the biliary anatomy and prevent or early detect bile duct injuries. X-ray intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and near infrared indocyanine green fluorescent cholangiography (NIR-ICG) are safe and feasible techniques to assess biliary anatomy. The aim of this systematic review will be to evaluate if NIR-ICG can visualize extrahepatic biliary anatomy more efficiently and safer than IOC in minimally invasive cholecystectomy for gallstone disease.MethodsLiterature search will be performed via MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection from 2009 to present. All randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective non-randomized controlled trials which report on comparison of NIR-ICG versus IOC will be included. All patients over 18 years old who require elective or urgent minimally invasive cholecystectomy (undergoing NIR-ICG during this procedure) due to gallstone disease both acute and chronic will be included. Since BDI has a low incidence, the primary outcome will be the ability to visualize extrahepatic biliary anatomy and the time to obtain relevant images of these structures. Two researchers will individually screen the identified records, according to a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Bias of the studies will be evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa score for non-randomized studies and with The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials. Quality of evidence for all outcomes will be determined with the GRADE system. The data will be registered in a predesigned database. If selected studies are sufficiently homogeneous, we will perform a meta-analysis of reported results. In the event of a substantial heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis will be provided. Subgroup analysis will be used to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity.DiscussionUnderstanding the benefits of this technique is critical to ensuring policymakers can make informed decisions as to where preventive efforts should be focused regarding specific imaging techniques. If ICG is proven to be faster and non-invasive, its routine use could be encouraged.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020177991 .

Project description:ImportanceSignificant controversy exists regarding routine intraoperative cholangiography in preventing common duct injury during cholecystectomy.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between intraoperative cholangiography use during cholecystectomy and common duct injury.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of all Texas Medicare claims data from 2000 through 2009. We identified Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older who underwent inpatient or outpatient cholecystectomy for biliary colic or biliary dyskinesia, acute cholecystitis, or chronic cholecystitis. We compared results from multilevel logistic regression models to the instrumental variable analyses.InterventionsIntraoperative cholangiography use during cholecystectomy was determined at the level of the patients (yes/no), hospitals (percentage intraoperative cholangiography use for all cholecystectomies at the hospital), and surgeons (percentage use for all cholecystectomies performed by the surgeon). Percentage of use at the hospital and percentage of use by surgeon were the instrumental variables.Main outcomes and measuresPatients with claims for common duct repair operations within 1 year of cholecystectomy were considered as having major common duct injury.ResultsOf 92,932 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 37,533 (40.4%) underwent concurrent intraoperative cholangiography and 280 (0.30%) had a common duct injury. The common duct injury rate was 0.21% among patients with intraoperative cholangiography and 0.36% among patients without it. In a logistic regression model controlling for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics, the odds of common duct injury for cholecystectomies performed without intraoperative cholangiography were increased compared with those performed with it (OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.35-2.36]; P < .001). When confounding was controlled with instrumental variable analysis, the association between cholecystectomy performed without intraoperative cholangiography and duct injury was no longer significant (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.81-1.96]; P = .31).Conclusions and relevanceWhen confounders were controlled with instrumental variable analysis, there was no statistically significant association between intraoperative cholangiography and common duct injury. Intraoperative cholangiography is not effective as a preventive strategy against common duct injury during cholecystectomy.

Dataset Information

Selective intraoperative cholangiography should be considered over routine intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Selective intraoperative cholangiography should be considered over routine intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets