Is there a role for routine intraoperative cholangiogram in diagnosing CBD stones in patients with normal liver function tests? A prospective study

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY Innovative Surgical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1515/iss-2023-0059
Yi Ping Lim, Voon Meng Leow, J. Koong, Manisekar Subramaniam
{"title":"Is there a role for routine intraoperative cholangiogram in diagnosing CBD stones in patients with normal liver function tests? A prospective study","authors":"Yi Ping Lim, Voon Meng Leow, J. Koong, Manisekar Subramaniam","doi":"10.1515/iss-2023-0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Cholecystectomy with or without intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) is an accepted treatment for cholelithiasis. Up to 11.6 % of cholecystectomies have incidental common bile duct (CBD) stones on IOC and 25.3 % of undiagnosed CBD stones will develop life-threatening complications. These will require additional intervention after primary cholecystectomy, further straining the healthcare system. We seek to examine the role of IOC in patients with normal LFTs by evaluating its predictive values, intending to treat undiagnosed CBD stones and therefore ameliorate these issues.\n \n \n \n All patients who underwent cholecystectomies with normal LFTs from October 2019 to December 2020 were prospectively enrolled. IOC was done, ERCPs were performed for filling defects and documented as “true positive” if ERCP was congruent with the IOC. “False positives” were recorded if ERCP was negative. “True negative” was assigned to normal IOC and LFT after 2 weeks of follow-up. Those with abnormal LFTs were subjected to ERCP and documented as “false negative”. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated.\n \n \n \n A total of 180 patients were analysed. IOC showed a specificity of 85.5 % and a NPV of 88.1 % with an AUC of 73.7 %. The positive predictive value and sensitivity were 56.5 and 61.9 % respectively.\n \n \n \n Routine IOC is a specific diagnostic tool with good negative predictive value. It is useful to exclude the presence of CBD stones when LFT is normal. It does not significantly prolong the length of hospitalization or duration of the cholecystectomy hence reducing the incidence of undetected retained stones and preventing its complications effectively.\n","PeriodicalId":44186,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2023-0059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cholecystectomy with or without intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) is an accepted treatment for cholelithiasis. Up to 11.6 % of cholecystectomies have incidental common bile duct (CBD) stones on IOC and 25.3 % of undiagnosed CBD stones will develop life-threatening complications. These will require additional intervention after primary cholecystectomy, further straining the healthcare system. We seek to examine the role of IOC in patients with normal LFTs by evaluating its predictive values, intending to treat undiagnosed CBD stones and therefore ameliorate these issues. All patients who underwent cholecystectomies with normal LFTs from October 2019 to December 2020 were prospectively enrolled. IOC was done, ERCPs were performed for filling defects and documented as “true positive” if ERCP was congruent with the IOC. “False positives” were recorded if ERCP was negative. “True negative” was assigned to normal IOC and LFT after 2 weeks of follow-up. Those with abnormal LFTs were subjected to ERCP and documented as “false negative”. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. A total of 180 patients were analysed. IOC showed a specificity of 85.5 % and a NPV of 88.1 % with an AUC of 73.7 %. The positive predictive value and sensitivity were 56.5 and 61.9 % respectively. Routine IOC is a specific diagnostic tool with good negative predictive value. It is useful to exclude the presence of CBD stones when LFT is normal. It does not significantly prolong the length of hospitalization or duration of the cholecystectomy hence reducing the incidence of undetected retained stones and preventing its complications effectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常规术中胆管造影在诊断肝功能检查正常的 CBD 结石患者中是否有作用?一项前瞻性研究
胆囊切除术结合或不结合术中胆管造影(IOC)是公认的胆石症治疗方法。高达 11.6% 的胆囊切除术在术中胆管造影(IOC)时偶然发现总胆管(CBD)结石,25.3% 的未确诊总胆管结石会发展成危及生命的并发症。这些并发症需要在初级胆囊切除术后进行额外干预,从而进一步加重医疗系统的负担。我们试图通过评估 IOC 的预测值来研究 IOC 在低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LFT)正常的患者中的作用,目的是治疗未确诊的 CBD 结石,从而改善这些问题。 所有在2019年10月至2020年12月期间接受胆囊切除术且LFT正常的患者均被纳入前瞻性研究。进行 IOC,ERCP 检查填充缺陷,如果 ERCP 与 IOC 一致,则记录为 "真阳性"。如果ERCP为阴性,则记录为 "假阳性"。随访 2 周后,IOC 和 LFT 均正常者为 "真阴性"。LFT 异常者接受 ERCP 检查,并记录为 "假阴性"。计算灵敏度、特异性和预测值。 共对 180 名患者进行了分析。IOC 的特异性为 85.5%,NPV 为 88.1%,AUC 为 73.7%。阳性预测值和灵敏度分别为 56.5 % 和 61.9 %。 常规 IOC 是一种特异性诊断工具,具有良好的阴性预测值。当LFT正常时,它有助于排除CBD结石的存在。它不会明显延长住院时间或胆囊切除术的时间,从而降低了未被发现的留置结石的发生率,有效预防了并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Right hepatectomy in absence of the left portal vein using the porto-rex shunt procedure Voluminous hiatal hernias – the role of robotic surgery Trastuzumab holds potential to accelerate spontaneous sensory reinnervation after free flap breast reconstruction: a proof of concept The effect of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSC) treatment on kidney histopathological appearance on the Wistar rat models with grade five kidney trauma Ileal free flap for hypopharynx reconstruction – case series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1