PubMed · 8245656
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K kimura. 1993-09-10. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8245656/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of magnetic resonance pancreaticography (MRCP) in the diagnostic process of common bile duct stones. DESIGN: Retrospective. METHOD: All 27 MRCPs performed in the period December 1997-December 1998 in the Deventer Hospital, the Netherlands, were evaluated using chart examination. The group comprised 11 males and 16 females with an average age of 57 years (SD 3.2) with anamnestic or biochemical cholestasis. If at MRCP stones were diagnosed, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) was performed. If MRCP was without abnormalities, no further diagnostic procedures were performed. The findings at MRCP were compared with those at ERCP and with the clinical course. The MRCP examinations were performed on a 1.5 Tesla MR unit. RESULTS: In 16 patients MRCP was performed before laparoscopic cholecystectomy and in 5 there after. In 5 MRCP was performed to rule out a biliary cause of acute pancreatitis and in 1 patient because of an elevated alkaline phophatase after laparotomy for an abdominal stab injury. There was one false-positive MRCP result and no false-negative ones. Accordingly, the sensitivity of MRCP for choledocholithiasis was 100% and the specificity 95%.
INTRODUCTION: The discussion of diagnostic pre- and intraoperative procedures of the common bile duct (CBD) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still open. METHODS: Results of a prospective study of 4000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were evaluated, adhering to the concept of selective common bile duct examination. In 1999 an inquiry was performed on 1197 patients an average of 38.7 months postoperatively to judge this concept. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen patients (8%) examined preoperatively by ERC revealing a CBD stone in 126 cases. The morbidity of this procedure was 3.1%. In 0.18% a lesion of the common bile duct was documented following laparoscopic cholecysTectomy. A intraoperative cholangiography was performed in 67 patients (1.7%) because of unclear anatomy or to exclude a CBD stone. Perioperatively a CBD stone was found in 0.5% of cases. Additionally, in 0.3% the same problem occurred in the long-term follow-up, so that the risk for unknown CBD stones following the selective diagnostic concept is 0.8%. CONCLUSION: The concept of selective diagnostic procedures of the common bile duct shows a low morbidity with sufficient efficiency in avoiding CBD stones as well as duct lesions. Therefore it is recommended for routine use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The old problem of diagnosis and treatment of choledocholithiasis is analyzed in light of recent developments in the field of radiology and surgery. The traditional indications for common bile duct (CBD) exploration resulted in a large number of unnecessary manipulations of the bile ducts. The same is now true of the widespread use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. With the advent of magnetic resonance imaging cholangiography, which can clearly demonstrate CBD calculi by means of a noninvasive, complication-free technology, we should abandon the old indications for CBD exploration and be more conservative regarding the diagnosis and management of this condition. In an era of minimally invasive surgery we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of patients with choledocholithiasis.