Literature DB >> 1558499

Intraoperative cholangiography revisited.

B W Pace1, J Cosgrove, B Breuer, I B Margolis.   

Abstract

The charts of 1351 patients undergoing cholecystectomy at our institutions from 1985 through 1989 were reviewed retrospectively to evaluate the indications for and the success of intraoperative cholangiography. A total of 800 patients underwent intraoperative cholangiography. They were divided into two groups based on the absence (CR-) or presence (CR+) of clinical and/or operative criteria suggestive of the existence of common bile duct stones. Intraoperative cholangiography in CR- patients was of limited benefit, being negative (normal) in 95.7%, true-positive (abnormal) in 3.3%, and false-positive in 1%. False-positive intraoperative cholangiography resulted in unnecessary common bile duct explorations. Intraoperative cholangiography in CR+ patients proved useful, avoiding unnecessary common bile duct exploration in 55%. In those select CR+ patients with palpable common bile duct stones or cholangitis, little additional information was gained by the intraoperative cholangiography. We conclude that routine screening intraoperative cholangiography in CR- patients be reconsidered, as should the use of intraoperative cholangiography in CR+ patients with a palpable common bile duct stone or cholangitis. Intraoperative cholangiography in the remainder of CR+ patients proved beneficial and should be continued.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1558499     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1992.01420040094016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  8 in total

1.  Comparison between intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy for ductal clearance in laparoscopic CBD exploration: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Anubhav Vindal; Jagdish Chander; Pawanindra Lal; Balu Mahendra
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Cholecystectomy without operative cholangiography. Implications for common bile duct injury and retained common bile duct stones.

Authors:  J S Barkun; G M Fried; A N Barkun; H H Sigman; E J Hinchey; J Garzon; M J Wexler; J L Meakins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Imaging of the common bile duct in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P J Hainsworth; M Rhodes; R H Gompertz; C P Armstrong; T W Lennard
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  An alternative technique for laparoscopic cholangiography.

Authors:  M D Holzman; K Sharp; G W Holcomb; M Frexes-Steed; W O Richards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Evaluation of operative cholangiography in 2043 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case for the selective operative cholangiogram.

Authors:  L L Snow; L S Weinstein; J K Hannon; D R Lane
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of bile duct lithiasis.

Authors:  Damir Miletic; Miljenko Uravic; Marzena Mazur-Brbac; Davor Stimac; Davor Petranovic; Branko Sestan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Acute cholecystitis: video-laparoscopic versus traditional treatment.

Authors:  P C Amaral; E M Azaro Filho; M P Galvão-Neto; M F Fortes; E L Souza; R S Alcântra; J E Ettinger; A B Regis; M M Sousa; V M do Carmo; P A Santana; E Fahel
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2001 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  The efficacy of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the detection and clearance of choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  E W Taylor; U Rajgopal; J Festekjian
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2000 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.