4.6 Article

Surgical management in biliary restricture after Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct injury

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 48, Pages 6598-6602

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.13.6598

Keywords

bile duct injury; biliary stricture; Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy; hepatic artery injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To discuss the surgical method and skill of biliary restricture after Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct injury. METHODS: From November 2005 to December 2006, eight patients with biliary restricture after Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct injury were admitted to our hospital. Their clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Bile duct injury was caused by cholecystectomy in the eight cases, including seven cases with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and one with mini-incision choleystectomy. According to the classification of Strasberg, type E1 injury was found in one patient, type E2 injury in three, type E3 injury in two and type E4 injury in two patients. Both of the type E4 injury patients also had a vascular lesion of the hepatic artery. Six patients received Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy for the second time, and one of them who had type E4 injury with the right hepatic artery disruption received right hepatectomy afterward. One patient who had type E4 injury with the proper hepatic artery lesion underwent liver transplantation, and the remaining one with type E3 injury received external biliary drainage. All the patients recovered fairly well postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy is still the main approach for such failed surgical cases with bile duct injury. Special attention should be paid to concomitant vascular injury in these cases. The optimal timing and meticulous and excellent skills are essential to the success in this surgery. (C) 2007 WJG. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available