Comparison between Laparoscopic Ultrasound and Intraoperative Cholangiogram in Detection of Common Bile Duct Stones during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Cholelithiasis: A Prospective Study

Mohamed Elkerkary, G. Ellabban, M. Shams, Mostafa Abdel-Raheem, H. Shaban, A. Hassan
{"title":"Comparison between Laparoscopic Ultrasound and Intraoperative Cholangiogram in Detection of Common Bile Duct Stones during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Cholelithiasis: A Prospective Study","authors":"Mohamed Elkerkary, G. Ellabban, M. Shams, Mostafa Abdel-Raheem, H. Shaban, A. Hassan","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is valuable in the detection of biliary abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of IOC during LC for the detection of anatomic variations of the biliary system, as well as the visualization ability of IOC on determining the normal anatomy of the biliary tree. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who were presented to the surgery outpatient clinic and were scheduled for elective LC for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Patients underwent intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) before the dissection of Calot’s triangle and IOC video fluoroscopy examination of the extrahepatic biliary tree. Results: Our study enrolled 53 patients. No intraoperative complications occurred in all enrolled patients. LUS was successful in all 53 (100 % ) cases, while IOC was successful in 50 (94.3 % ) cases. IOC had accuracy rate of 100 % (50 patients) in defining biliary ducts at the porta hepatis compared to 84.91 % (45 patients) for LUS with a failure rate of 15.09 % ( p = 0.60). Concerning stones detection, LUS accuracy indexes were as follows: sensitivity = 80 % ; specificity = 95.83 % ; positive predictive value (PPV) = 66.67 % ; negative predictive value (NPV) = 97.87 % 99; and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) = 92. IOC accuracy indexes were as follows: sensitivity = 80 % ; specificity = 93.33 % ; PPV = 57.14 % ; NPV = 90 % ; and DOR = 56. Conclusion: The results of the current study encourage using IOC as an effective, accurate, feasible, and safe technique to visualize the biliary tree while performing LC.","PeriodicalId":38741,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is valuable in the detection of biliary abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of IOC during LC for the detection of anatomic variations of the biliary system, as well as the visualization ability of IOC on determining the normal anatomy of the biliary tree. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who were presented to the surgery outpatient clinic and were scheduled for elective LC for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Patients underwent intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) before the dissection of Calot’s triangle and IOC video fluoroscopy examination of the extrahepatic biliary tree. Results: Our study enrolled 53 patients. No intraoperative complications occurred in all enrolled patients. LUS was successful in all 53 (100 % ) cases, while IOC was successful in 50 (94.3 % ) cases. IOC had accuracy rate of 100 % (50 patients) in defining biliary ducts at the porta hepatis compared to 84.91 % (45 patients) for LUS with a failure rate of 15.09 % ( p = 0.60). Concerning stones detection, LUS accuracy indexes were as follows: sensitivity = 80 % ; specificity = 95.83 % ; positive predictive value (PPV) = 66.67 % ; negative predictive value (NPV) = 97.87 % 99; and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) = 92. IOC accuracy indexes were as follows: sensitivity = 80 % ; specificity = 93.33 % ; PPV = 57.14 % ; NPV = 90 % ; and DOR = 56. Conclusion: The results of the current study encourage using IOC as an effective, accurate, feasible, and safe technique to visualize the biliary tree while performing LC.
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
腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆总管结石超声与术中胆道造影的比较:一项前瞻性研究
引言:腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中的术中胆道造影(IOC)在检测胆道异常方面有价值。在本研究中,我们旨在研究LC期间IOC在检测胆道系统解剖变异方面的诊断准确性,以及IOC在确定胆管树正常解剖方面的可视化能力。材料和方法:这项横断面研究是对那些在外科门诊就诊的患者进行的,这些患者因症状性胆结石而被安排进行选择性LC。患者在解剖Calot三角之前接受了术中腹腔镜超声检查(LUS),并对肝外胆管树进行了IOC视频荧光检查。结果:我们的研究纳入了53名患者。所有入选患者均未发生术中并发症。LUS在所有53例(100%)中成功,而IOC在50例(94.3%)中成功。IOC诊断肝门胆管的准确率为100%(50例),而LUS诊断肝门胆道的准确率则为84.91%(45例),失败率为15.09%(p=0.60);特异性=95.83%;阳性预测值(PPV)=66.67%;阴性预测值(NPV)=97.87%99;诊断优势比(DOR)=92。IOC准确度指标为:灵敏度=80%;特异性为93.33%;PPV=57.14%;NPV=90%;DOR=56。结论:目前的研究结果鼓励使用IOC作为一种有效、准确、可行和安全的技术,在进行LC时显示胆管树。
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
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Surgical Aspects of the Possover LION Procedure: An Emerging Procedure for Recovery of Visceral Functions and Locomotion in Paraplegics Avoiding the Falciform Ligament Sign during the Intraoperative Cholangiogram A Study on Effects of Leaking Carbon Dioxide Gas on Surgeons during Laparoscopic Surgeries Comparison between Laparoscopic Ultrasound and Intraoperative Cholangiogram in Detection of Common Bile Duct Stones during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Cholelithiasis: A Prospective Study Short-term Outcome of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial
×
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