| Literature DB >> 34436660 |
Ahmad H M Nassar1, Hwei Jene Ng2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main sources of post-cholecystectomy bile leakage (PCBL) not involving major duct injuries are the cystic duct and subvesical/hepatocystic ducts. Of the many studies on the diagnosis and management of PCBL, few addressed measures to avoid this serious complication. The aim of this study was to examine the causes and mechanisms leading to PCBL and to evaluate the effects of specific preventative strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Complications; Cystic duct ligation; Difficulty grading; Hepatocystic ducts; Instruments; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Post-cholecystectomy bile leak; Subvesical ducts
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34436660 PMCID: PMC8847250 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02264-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg ISSN: 1435-2443 Impact factor: 2.895
Fig. 1“Duckbill” grasper dissection identifying and isolating a HCD in the gallbladder bed
Fig. 2A A leaking SVD seen on the gallbladder bed proximally. An empyema of the gallbladder with the thick posterior wall fused with the liver resulted in a breach of the anatomical capsule. B The leaking SVD is cannulated and cholangiography obtained. C Completion cholangiography confirming no further leakage at the sutured duct
Patient demographics and perioperative data of the whole series and post-cholecystectomy bile leak (PCBL)
| Characteristics | No PCBL (n = 5650) (%) | PCBL (n = 25) (0.4%) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (range) | 51 (8–91) years | 62 (34–89 years) | |
| Gender | p = 0.034 | ||
| Male | 1450 (25.7%) | 12 (48.0%) | |
| Female | 4189 (74.1%) | 13 (52.0%) | |
| No record | 11 (0.2%) | - | |
| Type of admission | p < 0.001 | ||
| Elective | 3151 (55.8%) | 10 (40%) | |
| Emergency | 2493 (44.1%) | 15 (60%) | |
| Not recorded | 6 (0.1%) | - | |
| Condition of gallbladder | p = 0.001 | ||
| Chronic inflammation | 3884 (68.7%) | 10 (40.0%) | |
| Acute cholecystitis | 343 (6.1%) | 3 (12.0%) | |
| Empyema | 393 (7.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | |
| Contracted | 696 (12.3%) | 4 (16.0%) | |
| Mucocele | 334 (5.9%) | - | |
| Operative difficulty grade | p < 0.001 | ||
| Grade I | 1874 (33.2%) | 6 (24.0%) | |
| Grade II | 1724 (30.5%) | 3 (12.0%) | |
| Grade III | 1138 (20.1%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| Grade IV | 799 (14.1%) | 14 (56.0%) | |
| Grade V | 110 (2.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| No record | 5 (0.1%) | - | |
| Intraoperative cholangiography | 5196 (92.0%) | 22 (88.0%) | p = 0.768 |
| Abdominal drains | 2886 (51.1%) | 19 (76%) | p = 0.001 |
| Duration of operation, median (range) | 60 (15–570) min | 95 (35–285) min | |
| Open conversion | 28 (0.5%) | 0 | |
| Duration of hospital stay, median (range) | 4 (1–160) days | 17 (6–49) days | |
| Perioperative complication rate | 191 (3.4%) | 3 (12.0%) | p = 0.061 |
| 30-day readmission rate | 151 (2.7%) | 8 (32.0%) | p < 0.001 |
PCBL after failed CVS. GB gallbladder, CD cystic duct, HP Hartmann pouch, CBD common bile duct, TCE transcystic exploration
| Case no | Age | GB and pedicle condition | Difficulty grade | LC/TCE | CD closure | Drain | Source of PCBL | Hospital stay/days | Management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 55 | Contracted, wide CD with stone | IV | TCE | Sutured | Yes | CD stump | 6 | Settled conservatively |
| 2 | 49 | Contracted, wide CD with stone | III | TCE | Clips | Yes | CD stump | 9 | ERCP and stent |
| 3 | 89 | Acute cholecystitis, wide CD | IV | LC | Clips | Yes | Unknown | ? | Settled conservatively |
| 4 | 70 | Wide CD with stone, longitudinal incision | IV | LC | Sutured | Yes | CD stump | 6 | Settled conservatively |
| 5 | 75 | Contracted GB, thick pedicle, artery fused with duct | IV | TCE | Sutured | Yes | CD stump | 9 | Settled conservatively |
| 6 | 62 | Contracted GB, cirrhosis, dilated veins at pedicle | IV | TCE | Ties | Yes | ?biliary drain/CD | ? | P/C drainage |
| 7 | 78 | Cholecystoduodenal fistula, acute | IV | LC | Ties | Yes | Unknown | 12 | ERCP and stent |
| 8 | 56 | Empyema | IV | LC | Sutured | Yes | CD stump | 30 | Settled conservatively |
| 9 | 77 | Empyema | IV | TCE | Ties | Yes | CD stump | 34 | Settled conservatively |
| 10 | 53 | Empyema | IV | LC | Ties | Yes | CD stump | 26 | P/C drainage |
| 11 | 68 | Empyema | IV | TCE | Ties | Yes | ?biliary drain/CD | 64 | ERCP, P/C drainage |
| 12 | 72 | Empyema, abscess Liver, HP to CBD | IV | TCE | Ties | Yes | Unknown | 49 | P/C drainage |
| 13 | 80 | Empyema, GB abscess into liver | V | LC | Ties | Yes | ?biliary drain/CD | 22 | Settled conservatively |
| 14 | 75 | Empyema, wide CD with stone, friable | IV | TCE | Sutures | Yes | CD stump | 21 | Settled conservatively |
Fig. 3Flow diagram illustrating sources and management of post-cholecystectomy bile leaks and patients where potential risk of leakage was avoided
PCBL patients requiring reinterventions: timing of discharge and readmissions. LC laparoscopic cholecystectomy, I/P inpatient, IOC intraoperative cholangiogram, N/A not available
| LC | Difficulty grade | Discharge postop day | Readmission postop day | Presentation | P/C day | ERCP day | Relaparoscopy | Cause and management | Hospital stay |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | III | I/P | I/P | PCBL in drain | - | 2 | - | CD leak, stent | 6 |
| Patient 2 | IV | I/P | I/P | PCBL in drain | 10 | - | - | Subcapsular collection. Settled | N/A |
| Patient 3 | IV | I/P | I/P | PCBL in drain | - | 6 | - | ERCP negative. PCBL stopped | 12 |
| Patient 4 | II | 1 | 2 | Peritonitis | - | - | 2 | SVD. IOC, suture | 7 |
| Patient 5 | I | 1 | 8 | Abdominal pain | 21 | - | - | Settled, unknown source | 18 |
| Patient 6 | I | 1 | 4 | Abdominal pain | 6 | 7 | 8 | SVD, IOC, suture | 20 |
| Patient 7 | IV | I/P | I/P | PCBL in drain | 14 | - | - | Settled, unknown source | 26 |
| Patient 8 | IV | 28 | 32 | Abdominal pain | 18 | 22 | - | CD stump. Settled after further P/C drain on day 45 | 64 |
| Patient 9 | I | 1 | 6 | Abdominal pain | 14 | - | - | Settled, unknown source | 36 |
| Patient 10 | IV | 1 | 10 | Abdominal pain | 18 | - | - | Settled, unknown source | 49 |
| Patient 11 | I | 2 | 4 | Abdominal pain | - | 8 | 4 | SVD no IOC, postop ERCP | 16 |
| Patient 12 | I | 1 | 4 | Abdominal pain | - | 14 | 15 | CD leak, no IOC | 31 |
Fig. 4A leaking SVD seen at relaparoscopic exploration is cannulated (tip of cannula at opening) and a cholangiography obtained to confirm its distribution and the integrity of the main ducts
Fig. 5A leaking SVD on the distal gallbladder bed is sutured
Fig. 6Cystic duct cannulation and cholangiography showing a large right posterior sectional duct joining the common hepatic duct. Obscured by the gallbladder, this was extrahepatic and can be at risk of injury during gallbladder dissection
Comparison of PCBL rates, sources and management in some published studies
| Studies | PCBL rate (exclude major bile duct injury) | Source | Management | Mortality | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cystic duct | Subvesical duct | Unknown source | ||||
| Current study (N = 5675) | 25 (0.4%) | 11 (0.2%) | 3 (0.05%) | 11 (0.2%) | ERCP, percutaneous drainage, relaparoscopy | 0 |
| Merrie et al. [ | 18 (1.9%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | ERCP, percutaneous drainage, reoperation | 1 |
| Kozarek et al. [ | 3 (0.5%) | 3 (0.5%) | N/A | N/A | ERCP, surgical intervention | N/A |
| Sinha et al. [ | 5 (0.7%) | 4 (0.5%) | N/A | 1 | ERCP | N/A |
| Ahmad et al. [ | 24 | 10 | 2 | 12 | ERCP, percutaneous drainage, surgical intervention | 1 |
| Shaikh et al. [ | 13 (0.6%) | 9 (0.4%) | 3 (0.15%) | 1 (0.05%) | ERCP, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography | N/A |
| Goswami et al. [ | 14 (1.2%) | 1 (0.1%) | 3 (0.25%) | 10 (0.8%) | Operative intervention | 2 |