Literature DB >> 21445669

Safety measures during cholecystectomy: results of a nationwide survey.

K T Buddingh1, H S Hofker, H O ten Cate Hoedemaker, G M van Dam, R J Ploeg, V B Nieuwenhuijs.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify safety measures practiced by Dutch surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHOD: An electronic questionnaire was sent to all members of the Dutch Society of Surgery with a registered e-mail address.
RESULTS: The response rate was 40.4% and 453 responses were analyzed. The distribution of the respondents with regard to type of hospital was similar to that in the general population of Dutch surgeons. The critical view of safety (CVS) technique is used by 97.6% of the surgeons. It is documented by 92.6%, mostly in the operation report (80.0%), but often augmented by photography (42.7%) or video (30.2%). If the CVS is not obtained, 50.9% of surgeons convert to the open approach, 39.1% continue laparoscopically, and 10.0% perform additional imaging studies. Of Dutch surgeons, 53.2% never perform intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), 41.3% perform it incidentally, and only 2.6% perform it routinely. A total of 105 bile duct injuries (BDIs) were reported in 14,387 cholecystectomies (0.73%). The self-reported major BDI rate (involving the common bile duct) was 0.13%, but these figures need to be confirmed in other studies.
CONCLUSION: The CVS approach in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is embraced by virtually all Dutch surgeons. The course of action when CVS is not obtained varies. IOC seems to be an endangered skill as over half the Dutch surgeons never perform it and the rest perform it only incidentally.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21445669      PMCID: PMC3092925          DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1061-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


Introduction

After laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the early 1990s, an increase in the number of bile duct injuries (BDIs) was noted [1]. A BDI has serious medical, financial, and medicolegal consequences for patients and health-care professionals [2-4]. Subsequently, additional patient safety interventions were implemented. A major step toward safe cholecystectomy was the description of the “critical view of safety” (CVS) technique by Strasberg in 1995 [5]. The CVS technique is advocated by virtually all recent guidelines and expert commentaries [6-9]. The Dutch Society of Surgery issued a best-practice guideline in 2005 endorsing the CVS technique [10]. According to the guideline, CVS is achieved once one third of the gallbladder is dissected off the liver, and the presumed cystic duct and artery are the only structures running from the gallbladder to the hepatoduodenal ligament. The guidelines were promoted through publication and presentation at national conferences; all Dutch surgeons are expected to follow them. Another safety intervention is intraoperative cholangiography (IOC). Population-based analyses have shown a reduction in major BDI by 25–39% when IOC is performed [11-13]. The guidelines of the Dutch Society of Surgery currently do not recommend routine IOC. It has been suggested that the incidence of BDIs in the Netherlands is higher than in other countries [2]. Numerous papers have been published on preventive measures to take during cholecystectomy, but it remains unclear which safety measures are actually being employed by Dutch surgeons. This study aimed to identify practice of and opinions on the CVS technique and IOC.

Methods

An electronic questionnaire was composed by a panel of five abdominal surgeons and a medical psychologist (Appendix). The survey was completely anonymous. E-mail addresses were obtained of all members of the Dutch Society of Surgery, including surgical trainees, and the electronic questionnaire was sent to all addresses. Two weeks after the first e-mail, one reminder was sent. The study closed for recruitment 2 weeks later. Hospitals in the Netherlands may be classified as “university teaching” (tertiary referral, specialist training, and medical research), “nonuniversity teaching” (general hospitals licensed to train surgical trainees), or “nonteaching” (general hospitals that do not train surgical trainees). Once deemed sufficiently qualified, surgical trainees may perform cholecystectomies without supervision of a consultant present in operating theater. Statistical analysis was performed with SPPS ver. 16.0 for Windows (SPPS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to portray the responses. The accumulated number of cholecystectomies performed by the groups of surgeons was calculated using the median of the self-reported range of cholecystectomies (i.e., 17 for the range of 10–25). In case of >50 cholecystectomies per year, the arbitrarily chosen number of 60 was used. χ2 tests were used to compare the incidence of BDIs in different groups. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The electronic survey was successfully delivered to 1206 addresses. There was a 40.4% (487/1206) response rate. Thirty-four surgeons indicated that they no longer performed cholecystectomies. Thus, 453 questionnaires were included for analysis.

Clinical profile

The clinical profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1. Most respondents were abdominal or hepatobiliary surgeons (31.3%), followed by surgeons of other subspecialties (28.9%) and surgical trainees (23.8%). The majority of respondents worked in nonuniversity teaching hospitals (56.7%), followed by university hospitals (22.7%) and nonteaching hospitals (20.5%). This closely resembles the general distribution in the Netherlands [14]. The total number of estimated cholecystectomies in the last 12 months was 14,387.
Table 1

Clinical profile of the respondents

N
Differentiation
 Surgeon, abdominal or hepatobiliary142 (31.3%)
 Surgeon, other subspecialty131 (28.9%)
 General surgeon/fellow49 (15.9%)
 Surgical trainee108 (23.8%)
Type of hospital
 University hospital103 (22.7%)
 Teaching hospital257 (56.7%)
 Nonteaching hospital91 (20.5%)
No. of cholecystectomies in past 12 months
 <1060 (13.2%)
 10–25117 (25.8%)
 26–50194 (42.8%)
 >5082 (18.1%)
Clinical profile of the respondents

Operative technique

The CVS technique was used by 97.6% of the respondents. It was documented by 91.6%, usually in the operation notes. Photographs of the CVS were stored by 42.7% of surgeons and video images by 30.1%. If the CVS cannot be obtained, 50.9% opt for conversion to open surgery, 39.1% continue laparoscopically, and 10.0% perform additional imaging studies.

Intraoperative imaging studies

More than half of the surgeons (53.2%) never perform IOC. The remainder use it incidentally (<5%). Only 2.6% of the surgeons perform IOC routinely (>80% of cholecystectomies). Indications for IOC according to the surgeons were suspected BDI (53.0%), unclear anatomy (46.6%), and suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones (38.0%). Laparoscopic ultrasound was used by 2.1% of the surgeons.

Bile duct injuries

Of the respondents, 20.3% had experienced one or more cases of BDI in the past 12 months. These injuries involved the cystic and Luschkan ducts (type A injuries according to the Amsterdam criteria [15]) in 77.2% of cases and the CBD (nine cases of type B and ten type D) in 18.1% (Table 2). The self-reported BDI rate was 105/14,387 = 0.73%. The self-reported rate of major BDI (i.e., involving the CBD) was 19/14,387 = 0.13%.
Table 2

Operative technique and imaging

N
CVS technique used
 Yes442 (97.6%)
 No11 (2.4%)
CVS documented
 Yes405 (91.6%)
 No37 (8.4%)
 N/A11
CVS documented bya
 Operation notes324 (80.0%)
 Photograph173 (42.7%)
 Video122 (30.1%)
 N/A48
What course when CVS is not obtained
 Usually continue laparoscopically165 (39.1%)
 Usually convert to open225 (50.9%)
 Usually additional imaging studies44 (10.0%)
 N/A11
IOC performed
 Never241 (53.2%)
 <5%187 (41.3%)
 5–20%8 (1.8%)
 21–80%5 (1.1%)
 >80%12 (2.6%)
Indications for IOCa
 Routine17 (3.8%)
 Suspected CBD stones172 (38.0%)
 Unclear anatomy211 (46.6%)
 Suspected BDI240 (53.0%)
 Other54 (11.9%)
Laparoscopic ultrasound performed
 Never443 (97.8%)
 <5%7 (1.5%)
 5–20%2 (0.4%)
 21–80%0
 >80%1 (0.2%)
BDI in the past 12 months
 None361 (79.7%)
 179 (17.4%)
 213 (2.9%)
 >20
Types of BDI
 Cystic stump leak53
 Luschkan duct leak28
 CBD leak9
 CBD transsection10
 Other5

CVS critical view of safety, IOC intraoperative cholangiography, CBD common bile duct, BDI bile duct injury, N/A not applicable

aMultiple answers were possible

Operative technique and imaging CVS critical view of safety, IOC intraoperative cholangiography, CBD common bile duct, BDI bile duct injury, N/A not applicable aMultiple answers were possible The rate of self-reported major BDI was not correlated with the level of training of the surgeon, the course of action if CVS could not be obtained, or the use of IOC (Table 3). There was a nonsignicantly lower rate of major BDI in university hospitals (P = 0.098) and a higher rate in the group of surgeons who perform fewer than 10 cholecystectomies per year (P = 0.082). These figures are based upon self-reporting and were not corrected for the indication for performing the cholecystectomy, i.e., cholecystitis or biliary colic.
Table 3

Factors associated with major BDI (i.e., involving the CBD)

No. of surgeonsAccumulated No. of cholecystectomiesa Major BDIb P
Differentiation0.621
 Abdominal/HPB surgeon14252676 (0.11%)
 Other subspecialty13137867 (0.18%)
 General surgeon / fellow4925804 (0.16%)
 Surgical trainee10827542 (0.07%)
Type of hospital0.098
 University teaching10320050
 Nonuniversity teaching257867911 (0.13%)
 Nonteaching9137038 (0.22%)
No. of cholecystectomies in past 12 months0.082
 <10603002 (0.67%)
 10–2511719892 (0.10%)
 26–5019471789 (0.13%)
 >508249206 (0.12%)
What course when CVS is not obtainedc 0.350
 Usually continue laparoscopically16551398 (0.16%)
 Usually convert to open225729111 (0.15%)
 Usually additional imaging4413690
IOC performed0.505
 Never241749512 (0.16%)
 <5%18763426 (0.09%)
 5–20%82181 (0.46%)
 21–80%51360
 >80%121960

BDI bile duct injury, IOC intraoperative cholangiography, CVS critical view of safety

aCalculated by multiplying the number of surgeons by the median of the reported range of cholecystectomies performed yearly, and by 60 for those who reported to perform more than 50 per year

bThese constituted nine type B injuries and ten type D injuries [15]

cFor the surgeons who indicated that they used the CVS technique

Factors associated with major BDI (i.e., involving the CBD) BDI bile duct injury, IOC intraoperative cholangiography, CVS critical view of safety aCalculated by multiplying the number of surgeons by the median of the reported range of cholecystectomies performed yearly, and by 60 for those who reported to perform more than 50 per year bThese constituted nine type B injuries and ten type D injuries [15] cFor the surgeons who indicated that they used the CVS technique

Opinions on IOC

IOC was regarded as cumbersome by 39.0% of the surgeons (Table 4). Most surgeons (77.5%) assume IOC will take 10–30 min. Around one third of the surgeons think IOC reduces the risk of major BDI, one third does not, and one third does not know. A large majority (92.9%) of the surgeons feel that IOC should not be performed routinely.
Table 4

Opinions on IOC

N
Performing IOC is cumbersome
 Usually74 (16.3%)
 More often than not103 (22.7%)
 Sometimes127 (28.0%)
 Usually not114 (25.2%)
 Missing35 (7.7%)
How long does IOC take
 <10 min30 (6.7%)
 10–20 min179 (39.5%)
 20–30 min170 (37.5%)
 30–40 min50 (11.0%)
 >40 min24 (5.3%)
IOC reduces the risk of major BDI
 Yes134 (29.6%)
 No153 (33.8%)
 Don’t know136 (36.6%)
IOC should be performed routinely
 Not421 (92.9%)
 In all teaching hospitals21 (4.6%)
 In all hospitals11 (2.4%)

IOC intraoperative cholangiography, BDI bile duct injury, IOC intraoperative cholangiography

Opinions on IOC IOC intraoperative cholangiography, BDI bile duct injury, IOC intraoperative cholangiography

Trainees

All trainees reported use of the CVS technique versus 96.8% of other surgeons (P = 0.074). There were more trainees who never performed IOC than other surgeons (72.2% vs. 47.2%, P = 0.002 in linear-by-linear association).

Discussion

The current study is an inventory of safety measures during cholecystectomy in a broad population of general surgeons and trainees in the Netherlands. The response rate was fair with 40.4%, allowing a comparison with a similar survey in the United States [16] and a survey among British and Irish upper-GI surgeons [17]. The distribution of the respondents with regard to type of hospital resembled the general distribution in the Netherlands. The self-reported number of cholecystectomies performed yearly represents about 60% of the 24,000 performed yearly [18]. The survey therefore provides a reliable representation of the general Dutch practice. The critical view of safety (CVS) was found to be widely accepted in Dutch practice: 97.6% of the respondents use this technique. Reviewing 13 Dutch cholecystectomy protocols in 2008, Wauben et al. [19] found that only one explicitly incorporated the use of CVS. It seems that although protocols need to be updated in some hospitals, the CVS is widely accepted in the Netherlands as the gold standard. The implementation of the most important safety measure to prevent bile duct injury (BDI) can thus be considered highly successful and is praiseworthy. In a similar survey by Sanjay et al. [17], 82% of the British and Irish upper-GI surgeons advocated the CVS technique. It is unknown how often this technique is actually practiced by British general surgeons or how well institutionalized the CVS technique is in other countries. Documentation of the CVS in the operation notes is done by 80.0% of surgeons, and augmented by a majority by video or photographs. The course of action when CVS is not obtained varies. Although the nature of the question does not address some of the nuances in difficult cholecystectomies, a divergent strategic approach of the surgeons is illustrated. Timely conversion in case of uncertain anatomy is seen by many surgeons as an important safety measure. However, as the open approach is increasingly reserved for “difficult cases” and experience with the open technique diminishes, there are increasing reports of BDI occurring after conversion [20, 21]. Depending on the experience of the surgeon, other alternatives such as laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy may in some cases be safer than conversion. In a Dutch series of 1509 patients, experienced laparoscopy surgeons were four times less likely to convert than less experienced laparoscopy surgeons (3.6% vs. 15.6%) [22]. The conversion rate in the Netherlands varies; up to 18% has been reported [23]. These papers, like most, do not assess whether CVS was achieved. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is very seldom performed in the Netherlands; 53.1% of surgeons never use it and 41.3% perform it incidentally (<5% of cholecystectomies). This contrasts with the practice in the US and the UK, where over 25% of surgeons routinely perform IOC and there are few surgeons who never apply it [16, 17]. In Australia, IOC is performed in over 60% of cholecystectomies [12]. Despite the fact that many Dutch surgeons feel that suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones, unclear anatomy, and suspected bile duct injury (BDI) are indications for IOC, in clinical practice they only rarely apply it. Approximately one third of the responding surgeons believed that IOC reduces the risk of BDI, one third did not, and one third indicated that they did not know. Opinions were divided on whether IOC was a cumbersome procedure and how much time it consumes. The great majority of surgeons (93%) believe that IOC should not be routinely practiced. This is remarkable as many of these surgeons believed that IOC reduces the risk of BDI. Apparently, the arguments against routine IOC are thought to outweigh the benefits. Additionally, Dutch insurance companies currently do not reimburse the surgeon for performing IOC. The guidelines currently do not advise selective or routine IOC, and this is reflected in the daily practice of Dutch surgeons. Although the discussion on whether to perform IOC routinely or selectively is far from closed, it seems undesirable that surgeons would lose the skill of IOC altogether. We advocate a low threshold for IOC, especially in complicated biliary disease such as cholangitis and pancreatitis, and certainly in cases of unclear anatomy. An attitude change may be necessary in order for Dutch surgeons to apply IOC more frequently as an investment in patient safety. The self-reported major BDI rate (i.e., involving the CBD) was 0.13%. This is much lower than the figures mentioned in the literature and similar to the rate observed before the laparoscopic era [11, 24]. Caution is necessary interpreting this figure as a survey such as this is not the optimal tool to assess the occurrence of complications. No evidence could be found in the literature on the validity of self-reported complications by surgeons. Further research is needed to confirm this low complication rate. The most important limitation of this study is that it relies on self-reporting. It cannot be confirmed that the surgeons use the techniques that they report to use and to what extent. However, the results are certainly of interest as they reflect opinions on and the acceptance of safety measures during cholecystectomy. In summary, our survey provides insight into safety precautions taken by Dutch surgeons to prevent BDI during cholecystectomy. The CVS approach is embraced by virtually all Dutch surgeons. When CVS is not obtained, different approaches are used, with half of the surgeons choosing to convert. IOC seems to be an endangered skill as over half the Dutch surgeons never perform it and the rest do so only incidentally. Although one may argue as to whether IOC should be performed routinely or selectively, it seems an undesirable development that surgeons would lose the skill of IOC altogether.
  21 in total

1.  Optimal surgical technique, use of intra-operative cholangiography (IOC), and management of acute gallbladder disease: the results of a nation-wide survey in the UK and Ireland.

Authors:  P Sanjay; C Kulli; F M Polignano; I S Tait
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis should be performed by a laparoscopic surgeon.

Authors:  Kirsten Kortram; Jan Siert Kayitsinga Reinders; Bert van Ramshorst; Marinus J Wiezer; Peter M N Y H Go; Djamila Boerma
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Surgeon knowledge, behavior, and opinions regarding intraoperative cholangiography.

Authors:  Nader N Massarweh; Allison Devlin; Jo Ann Broeckel Elrod; Rebecca Gaston Symons; David R Flum
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  [Conversion has to be learned: bile duct injury following conversion to open cholecystectomy].

Authors:  Klaske A C Booij; Philip R de Reuver; Otto M van Delden; Dirk J Gouma
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2009

5.  Impact of bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy on quality of life: a longitudinal study after multidisciplinary treatment.

Authors:  P R de Reuver; M A Sprangers; E A Rauws; J S Lameris; O R Busch; T M van Gulik; D J Gouma
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Outcome measurement in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by using a prospective complication registry: results of an audit.

Authors:  Eelco J Veen; Marianne Bik; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Maryska De Jongh; Anne J Roukema
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 2.038

7.  Surgical outcomes of open cholecystectomy in the laparoscopic era.

Authors:  Andrea S Wolf; Bram A Nijsse; Suzanne M Sokal; Yuchiao Chang; David L Berger
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Litigation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an evaluation of the Dutch arbitration system for medical malpractice.

Authors:  Philip R de Reuver; Jan Wind; Jan E Cremers; Olivier R Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Dirk J Gouma
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2007-10-29       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Survival in bile duct injury patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multidisciplinary approach of gastroenterologists, radiologists, and surgeons.

Authors:  Philip R de Reuver; Erik A Rauws; Marco J Bruno; Johan S Lameris; Olivier R Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Dirk J Gouma
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Evaluation of protocol uniformity concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Linda S G L Wauben; Richard H M Goossens; Daan J van Eijk; Johan F Lange
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  10 in total

1.  SAGES expert Delphi consensus: critical factors for safe surgical practice in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Philip H Pucher; L Michael Brunt; Robert D Fanelli; Horacio J Asbun; Rajesh Aggarwal
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Correction to: Knowledge of the Culture of Safety in Cholecystectomy (COSIC) Among Surgical Residents: Do We Train Them Well For Future Practice?

Authors:  Vishal Gupta; Pawanindra Lal; Anubhav Vindal; Rajdeep Singh; Vinay K Kapoor
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Laparoscopic partial cholecystectomy for the difficult gallbladder: a systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel Henneman; David W da Costa; Bart C Vrouenraets; Bart A van Wagensveld; Sjoerd M Lagarde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Kumar versus Olsen cannulation technique for intraoperative cholangiography: a randomized trial.

Authors:  K Tim Buddingh; Ben M Bosma; Brenda Samaniego-Cameron; Henk O ten Cate Hoedemaker; H Sijbrand Hofker; Gooitzen M van Dam; Rutger J Ploeg; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Increasing resident utilization and recognition of the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study from an academic medical center.

Authors:  Crystal B Chen; Francesco Palazzo; Stephen M Doane; Jordan M Winter; Harish Lavu; Karen A Chojnacki; Ernest L Rosato; Charles J Yeo; Michael J Pucci
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Association of Video Completed by Audio in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Improvements in Operative Reporting.

Authors:  Özgür Eryigit; Floyd W van de Graaf; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Meindert N Sosef; Eelco J R de Graaf; Anand G Menon; Marilyne M Lange; Johan F Lange
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  Documenting correct assessment of biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K T Buddingh; A N Morks; H O ten Cate Hoedemaker; C B Blaauw; G M van Dam; R J Ploeg; H S Hofker; V B Nieuwenhuijs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  THE CRITICAL VIEW OF SAFETY PREVENTS THE APPEARANCE OF BILIARY INJURIES? ANALYSIS OF A SURVEY.

Authors:  Mariano Eduardo Giménez; Eduardo Javier Houghton; Manuel E Zeledón; Mariano Palermo; Pablo Acquafresca; Caetano Finger; Edgardo Serra
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2018-07-02

9.  A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Wouter Kg Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Saskia Houterman; Margot Veerman; Johan Legemaate; Marc R Scheltinga
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2013-01-21

10.  Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FALCON trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jacqueline van den Bos; Rutger M Schols; Misha D Luyer; Ronald M van Dam; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Wilhelmus J Meijerink; Paul D Gobardhan; Gooitzen M van Dam; Nicole D Bouvy; Laurents P S Stassen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.