错失腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)的机会:我们可以做得更好。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Tawni M Johnston, Casey R Lamb, Alice Jo, Christina L Sierra Rodriguez, David Joshua Mancini, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Byron Fernando Santos
{"title":"错失腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)的机会:我们可以做得更好。","authors":"Tawni M Johnston, Casey R Lamb, Alice Jo, Christina L Sierra Rodriguez, David Joshua Mancini, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Byron Fernando Santos","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-12159-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but with a shorter length of stay (LOS). Nevertheless, LCBDE remains highly underutilized. Since 2021, our institution has conducted simulation-based LCBDE training for surgeons and residents. We sought to determine our current LCBDE utilization rate and potential utilization rate by identifying \"missed opportunities\" for LCBDE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed LCBDE or ERCP plus LC cases from 2023 to 2024 at a single institution. We excluded LC for hepatobiliary cancer and ERCP for non-gallstone disease. Contraindications to LCBDE were severe cholangitis, severe pancreatitis, malignancy concern, or significant comorbidities. We defined \"missed opportunities\" as cases eligible for LCBDE wherein ERCP was chosen instead. Median LOS (days) was compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 87 patients underwent LC plus LCBDE or ERCP. LCBDE was performed in 38% (n = 33, LOS = 2). ERCP with appropriate justification was performed in 25% (n = 22, LOS = 4.5) due to severe acute cholangitis (15%, n = 13), concern for malignancy (6%, n = 5), surgeon judgment (3%, n = 3), severe pancreatitis (1%, n = 1), severe comorbidities (1%, n = 1), patient preference (1%, n = 1), and diagnostic uncertainty (2%, n = 2). \"Missed opportunities\" represented the remaining 37% (n = 32, LOS = 3) due to: surgeon consulted after ERCP (18%, n = 16), patient transferred for ERCP only (5%, n = 4), surgeon not LCBDE trained (2%, n = 2), unavailable operating room (1%, n = 1), and unclear reasons (10%, n = 9).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our potential LCBDE utilization rate was 75%. Most ERCP cases represented \"missed opportunities\" for LCBDE despite our robust LCBDE adoption. \"Missed opportunities\" had a significantly longer median LOS than LCBDE (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.048). Efforts to optimize LCBDE utilization could significantly reduce LOS. The highest yield quality improvement opportunity may be to optimize ERCP/LC referral patterns. The 10% of unclear \"missed opportunities\" cases require additional investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Missed opportunities for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE): we can do better.\",\"authors\":\"Tawni M Johnston, Casey R Lamb, Alice Jo, Christina L Sierra Rodriguez, David Joshua Mancini, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Byron Fernando Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-025-12159-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but with a shorter length of stay (LOS). Nevertheless, LCBDE remains highly underutilized. Since 2021, our institution has conducted simulation-based LCBDE training for surgeons and residents. We sought to determine our current LCBDE utilization rate and potential utilization rate by identifying \\\"missed opportunities\\\" for LCBDE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed LCBDE or ERCP plus LC cases from 2023 to 2024 at a single institution. We excluded LC for hepatobiliary cancer and ERCP for non-gallstone disease. Contraindications to LCBDE were severe cholangitis, severe pancreatitis, malignancy concern, or significant comorbidities. We defined \\\"missed opportunities\\\" as cases eligible for LCBDE wherein ERCP was chosen instead. Median LOS (days) was compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 87 patients underwent LC plus LCBDE or ERCP. LCBDE was performed in 38% (n = 33, LOS = 2). ERCP with appropriate justification was performed in 25% (n = 22, LOS = 4.5) due to severe acute cholangitis (15%, n = 13), concern for malignancy (6%, n = 5), surgeon judgment (3%, n = 3), severe pancreatitis (1%, n = 1), severe comorbidities (1%, n = 1), patient preference (1%, n = 1), and diagnostic uncertainty (2%, n = 2). \\\"Missed opportunities\\\" represented the remaining 37% (n = 32, LOS = 3) due to: surgeon consulted after ERCP (18%, n = 16), patient transferred for ERCP only (5%, n = 4), surgeon not LCBDE trained (2%, n = 2), unavailable operating room (1%, n = 1), and unclear reasons (10%, n = 9).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our potential LCBDE utilization rate was 75%. Most ERCP cases represented \\\"missed opportunities\\\" for LCBDE despite our robust LCBDE adoption. \\\"Missed opportunities\\\" had a significantly longer median LOS than LCBDE (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.048). Efforts to optimize LCBDE utilization could significantly reduce LOS. The highest yield quality improvement opportunity may be to optimize ERCP/LC referral patterns. The 10% of unclear \\\"missed opportunities\\\" cases require additional investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12159-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12159-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)是内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)加腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的一种安全有效的替代方法,但住院时间(LOS)更短。然而,LCBDE仍然未得到充分利用。自2021年起,我院对外科医生和住院医师开展了基于模拟的LCBDE培训。我们试图通过确定LCBDE的“错失机会”来确定我们当前的LCBDE利用率和潜在利用率。方法:我们回顾了从2023年到2024年在单一机构的LCBDE或ERCP加LC病例。我们排除了肝癌的LC和非胆结石疾病的ERCP。LCBDE的禁忌症是严重的胆管炎、严重的胰腺炎、恶性肿瘤或严重的合并症。我们将“错失的机会”定义为符合LCBDE条件的病例,其中选择ERCP代替。比较两组间平均生存时间(天)。结果:87例患者行LC + LCBDE或ERCP。38%的患者行LCBDE (n = 33, LOS = 2)。由于严重急性胆管炎(15%,n = 13)、对恶性肿瘤的担忧(6%,n = 5)、外科医生判断(3%,n = 3)、严重胰腺炎(1%,n = 1)、严重合共病(1%,n = 1)、患者偏好(1%,n = 1)和诊断不确定(2%,n = 2), 25% (n = 22, LOS = 4.5)的患者进行了ERCP。“错失机会”占剩余37% (n = 32, LOS = 3),原因包括:ERCP后咨询外科医生(18%,n = 16),患者仅转行ERCP (5%, n = 4),外科医生未接受LCBDE培训(2%,n = 2),无法使用手术室(1%,n = 1)和原因不明确(10%,n = 9)。结论:我院LCBDE的潜在利用率为75%。尽管我们大力采用LCBDE,但大多数ERCP病例代表了LCBDE的“错失机会”。“错失机会”的平均生存时间明显长于LCBDE(3天vs. 2天,p = 0.048)。优化LCBDE利用率可以显著降低LOS。最大的产量质量改进机会可能是优化ERCP/LC转诊模式。10%不明确的“错失机会”案件需要进一步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Missed opportunities for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE): we can do better.

Background: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but with a shorter length of stay (LOS). Nevertheless, LCBDE remains highly underutilized. Since 2021, our institution has conducted simulation-based LCBDE training for surgeons and residents. We sought to determine our current LCBDE utilization rate and potential utilization rate by identifying "missed opportunities" for LCBDE.

Methods: We reviewed LCBDE or ERCP plus LC cases from 2023 to 2024 at a single institution. We excluded LC for hepatobiliary cancer and ERCP for non-gallstone disease. Contraindications to LCBDE were severe cholangitis, severe pancreatitis, malignancy concern, or significant comorbidities. We defined "missed opportunities" as cases eligible for LCBDE wherein ERCP was chosen instead. Median LOS (days) was compared between groups.

Results: A total of 87 patients underwent LC plus LCBDE or ERCP. LCBDE was performed in 38% (n = 33, LOS = 2). ERCP with appropriate justification was performed in 25% (n = 22, LOS = 4.5) due to severe acute cholangitis (15%, n = 13), concern for malignancy (6%, n = 5), surgeon judgment (3%, n = 3), severe pancreatitis (1%, n = 1), severe comorbidities (1%, n = 1), patient preference (1%, n = 1), and diagnostic uncertainty (2%, n = 2). "Missed opportunities" represented the remaining 37% (n = 32, LOS = 3) due to: surgeon consulted after ERCP (18%, n = 16), patient transferred for ERCP only (5%, n = 4), surgeon not LCBDE trained (2%, n = 2), unavailable operating room (1%, n = 1), and unclear reasons (10%, n = 9).

Conclusions: Our potential LCBDE utilization rate was 75%. Most ERCP cases represented "missed opportunities" for LCBDE despite our robust LCBDE adoption. "Missed opportunities" had a significantly longer median LOS than LCBDE (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.048). Efforts to optimize LCBDE utilization could significantly reduce LOS. The highest yield quality improvement opportunity may be to optimize ERCP/LC referral patterns. The 10% of unclear "missed opportunities" cases require additional investigation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
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