4.4 Article

Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography: role of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography - a retrospective cohort study

期刊

BMC SURGERY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-016-0159-9

关键词

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; Intraoperative cholangiography; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Bile duct injury; Common bile duct stones

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard treatment for gallbladder diseases. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) can reduce biliary complications of LC; however, with the emergence of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), IOC nowadays is faced with unprecedented challenge. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether preoperative MRCP can safely replace IOC during elective LC in terms of retained common bile duct (CBD) stones and bile duct injury (BDI). Methods: A retrospective study on candidates for elective LC who underwent IOC or preoperative MRCP between January 2009 and December 2014 was conducted. Results: In the IOC group, 1972 patients underwent LC and 213 required IOC. In the MRCP group, 2268 patients underwent LC and 257 required MRCP. In the IOC group, the rate of retained CBD stones was 0.45 % without IOC and 1.41 % with IOC. In five of 157 patients who underwent IOC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic CBD exploration showed no evidence of CBD stones. In the MRCP group, the rate of retained CBD stones was 0.45 % without MRCP. No patients with normal MRCP findings returned with symptomatic CBD stones during 1-year follow-up. The rate of BDIs was 0.20 % in the IOC group and 0.13 % in the MRCP group. Conclusions: Selective use of preoperative MRCP is an effective and safe strategy when conducting elective LC to treat gallstones. LC resorting to preoperative MRCP can be performed safely without IOC, with an acceptable rate of retained CBD stones and BDIs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据