4.6 Article

Long-term outcome of biliary reconstruction for bile duct injuries from laparoscopic cholecytectomies

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 142, Issue 4, Pages 450-456

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.008

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Major bile duct injuries remain a potentially devastating complication after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A retrospective review was conducted, of patients who underwent a biliary-enteric reconstruction of a biliary injury to assess their long-term outcome. Methods. Retrospective review of bile duct, injury database from January 1990 to December 2005. Results. A total of 144 patients were treated for bile duct injury, and 84 (58%) required a biliary-enteric reconstruction. Stratification by Bismuth-Strasberg injury level revealed El or E2 in 23, E3 in 33, E4 in 17, E5 in 1, and B+C in 10. Forty four (52%) were operated within 7 days of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the remainder operated at a median of 79 days after referral. Early or late mortality occurred in 3 (4%). At a mean follow-up of 67 months, 9 patients (11%) developed a biliary stricture presented at a median of 13 months after bile duct repair. Level of injury was very important in predicting a postoperative biliary stricture: E4 (35%) versus E3 (9%; P = .023), and E4 versus El, E2 B+C (0%; P =. 001). More strictures occurred in patients operated within 7 days of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (19%) versus delayed repair (8%; P = .053). Overall, 90% of patients are alive and nonstented; 5 patients have chronic liver disease (1 on the waiting list for liver transplant). Nonbiliary complications occurred in 15 patients; the total morbidity was 40%. Conclusions. Bile duct injuries that require a biliary-enteric repair are commonly associated with longm term complications. Level of injury and likely timing of repair predict risk of postoperative stricture.

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