Intraoperative Cholangiogram Interpretation for Laparoscopic Transcystic Bile Duct Exploration: Is Concurrence Possible?

Jennifer Turco, Matthew Pugliese, Anand Trivedi, Oscar Aldridge, Laurence Webber, Mohammed Ballal
{"title":"Intraoperative Cholangiogram Interpretation for Laparoscopic Transcystic Bile Duct Exploration: Is Concurrence Possible?","authors":"Jennifer Turco, Matthew Pugliese, Anand Trivedi, Oscar Aldridge, Laurence Webber, Mohammed Ballal","doi":"10.1097/AS9.0000000000000543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) represents a secure and efficacious approach for managing common bile duct (CBD) stones, particularly in patients concurrently undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The decision to proceed with LTCBDE hinges on real-time assessment of the intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), which is highly operator-dependent and poorly interpreted. No established criteria exist to guide the evaluation of IOCs for LTCBDE. This study aims to ascertain the concordance among surgeons, experienced in LTCBDE, on critical aspects of IOC interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective collection of IOC images of 40 patients who underwent LC, IOC, and LTCBDE at a tertiary university hospital between 2017 and 2018 was undertaken. Two hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and 2 acute care surgery (ACS) specialists independently reviewed the images. They were tasked with assessing IOC features hypothesized to influence duct exploration and stone extraction complexity, along with overall suitability for LTCBDE based exclusively on the IOC images. Agreement percentages were calculated and Kappa inter-rater reliability statistics were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall agreement percentages concerning IOC features ranged between 52.5% and 82.5% with agreements surpassing 75% deemed robust. Maximum agreement was achieved in the interpretation of cystic duct morphology, whether straight or characterized by spiral valves. The concurrence for amenability of LTCBDE also demonstrated substantial accord among surgeons (ACS: 92.5%, HPB: 95%, total: 87.5%). Consistently high agreement was evident within specialty groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anatomical attributes displayed superior agreement levels, as opposed to variables necessitating measurements. We recommend the development of a structured approach for the interpretation of IOC to facilitate surgical education in LTCBDE.</p>","PeriodicalId":72231,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches","volume":"6 1","pages":"e543"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932608/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) represents a secure and efficacious approach for managing common bile duct (CBD) stones, particularly in patients concurrently undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The decision to proceed with LTCBDE hinges on real-time assessment of the intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), which is highly operator-dependent and poorly interpreted. No established criteria exist to guide the evaluation of IOCs for LTCBDE. This study aims to ascertain the concordance among surgeons, experienced in LTCBDE, on critical aspects of IOC interpretation.

Methods: A retrospective collection of IOC images of 40 patients who underwent LC, IOC, and LTCBDE at a tertiary university hospital between 2017 and 2018 was undertaken. Two hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and 2 acute care surgery (ACS) specialists independently reviewed the images. They were tasked with assessing IOC features hypothesized to influence duct exploration and stone extraction complexity, along with overall suitability for LTCBDE based exclusively on the IOC images. Agreement percentages were calculated and Kappa inter-rater reliability statistics were assessed.

Results: The overall agreement percentages concerning IOC features ranged between 52.5% and 82.5% with agreements surpassing 75% deemed robust. Maximum agreement was achieved in the interpretation of cystic duct morphology, whether straight or characterized by spiral valves. The concurrence for amenability of LTCBDE also demonstrated substantial accord among surgeons (ACS: 92.5%, HPB: 95%, total: 87.5%). Consistently high agreement was evident within specialty groups.

Conclusions: Anatomical attributes displayed superior agreement levels, as opposed to variables necessitating measurements. We recommend the development of a structured approach for the interpretation of IOC to facilitate surgical education in LTCBDE.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

腹腔镜经囊胆管探查术中胆管造影的解释:是否可以同时进行?
背景:腹腔镜经囊胆管探查(LTCBDE)是治疗胆总管(CBD)结石的一种安全有效的方法,特别是在同时进行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的患者中。进行LTCBDE的决定取决于术中胆管造影(IOC)的实时评估,这是高度依赖于手术者的,而且解释不充分。目前还没有确定的标准来指导LTCBDE的ioc评估。本研究旨在确定在LTCBDE经验丰富的外科医生在IOC解释的关键方面的一致性。方法:回顾性收集2017年至2018年在某三级大学医院接受LC、IOC和LTCBDE治疗的40例患者的IOC图像。两名肝胰胆(HPB)和两名急性护理外科(ACS)专家独立审查了图像。他们的任务是评估假设影响管道勘探和石材开采复杂性的IOC特征,以及仅基于IOC图像的LTCBDE的总体适用性。计算同意百分比并评估Kappa间信度统计。结果:关于IOC特征的总体协议百分比在52.5%到82.5%之间,协议超过75%被认为是可靠的。最大的共识是在解释囊管形态,无论是直或特征的螺旋阀。外科医生对LTCBDE适应性的认同也表现出了很大的一致性(ACS: 92.5%, HPB: 95%, total: 87.5%)。在专业群体中,一致性很高。结论:与需要测量的变量相反,解剖属性显示出更高的一致性水平。我们建议发展一种结构化的方法来解释IOC,以促进LTCBDE的外科教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信