From the operating room: Surgeons' views on difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

IF 1.1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.14701/ahbps.24-219
Ritika Agarwal, Vinay M D Prabhu, Nitin A R Rao
{"title":"From the operating room: Surgeons' views on difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies.","authors":"Ritika Agarwal, Vinay M D Prabhu, Nitin A R Rao","doi":"10.14701/ahbps.24-219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds/aims: </strong>Assessing surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging due to variations in surgeon proficiency and institutional protocols. This study evaluates surgeons' perspectives on procedural difficulty and examines how intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging contribute to refining difficulty assessment criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 laparoscopic surgeons in India, providing insights into tolerances for surgical duration and blood loss, reasons for conversion, and predictors of complexity. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, with statistical significance set at <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among surveyed surgeons, 82.0% were male, and 78.0% worked in private institutions and 52.0% had performed over 1,000 LCs. Conversion to open surgery was primarily influenced by significant blood loss (68.0%) and biliary injury (94.0%). While 38.0% preferred surgeries under 60 minutes, 26.0% imposed no time constraints. Key intraoperative challenges included dense adhesions, cholecysto-enteric fistulas, and fibrosis. Less experienced surgeons reported greater challenges with scarring adhesions and anatomical variations, but no significant differences were found for other factors like edematous or necrotic changes. Preoperative imaging was considered essential by most surgeons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the limited reliability of traditional parameters for assessing difficulty in LC. Surgeons highlighted the importance of objective intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging in predicting surgical challenges. Factors such as adhesions, fibrosis, and anatomical variations significantly impact LC difficulty, with decisions regarding conversion to open surgery largely driven by individual judgment rather than experience. Standardized grading systems incorporating these factors could improve surgical planning, reduce complications, and enhance patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72220,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.24-219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds/aims: Assessing surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging due to variations in surgeon proficiency and institutional protocols. This study evaluates surgeons' perspectives on procedural difficulty and examines how intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging contribute to refining difficulty assessment criteria.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 laparoscopic surgeons in India, providing insights into tolerances for surgical duration and blood loss, reasons for conversion, and predictors of complexity. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: Among surveyed surgeons, 82.0% were male, and 78.0% worked in private institutions and 52.0% had performed over 1,000 LCs. Conversion to open surgery was primarily influenced by significant blood loss (68.0%) and biliary injury (94.0%). While 38.0% preferred surgeries under 60 minutes, 26.0% imposed no time constraints. Key intraoperative challenges included dense adhesions, cholecysto-enteric fistulas, and fibrosis. Less experienced surgeons reported greater challenges with scarring adhesions and anatomical variations, but no significant differences were found for other factors like edematous or necrotic changes. Preoperative imaging was considered essential by most surgeons.

Conclusions: This study underscores the limited reliability of traditional parameters for assessing difficulty in LC. Surgeons highlighted the importance of objective intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging in predicting surgical challenges. Factors such as adhesions, fibrosis, and anatomical variations significantly impact LC difficulty, with decisions regarding conversion to open surgery largely driven by individual judgment rather than experience. Standardized grading systems incorporating these factors could improve surgical planning, reduce complications, and enhance patient outcomes.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Neoadjuvant treatment for incidental gallbladder cancer: A systematic review. The role of artificial intelligence in pancreatic surgery: Current and future perspectives. Comment on: "Deep learning-based surgical phase recognition in laparoscopic cholecystectomy". ArtiSential® laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus singlefulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Which minimally invasive surgery is better? Improved graft survival by using three-dimensional printing of intra-abdominal cavity to prevent large-for-size syndrome in liver transplantation.
×
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