3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Strasberg Yes or No? An Italian Multicentre study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of gallbladder lithiasis; nevertheless, the incidence of bile duct injuries (BDI) is still high (0.3–0.8%) compared to open cholecystectomy (0.2%). In 1995, Strasberg introduced the "Critical View of Safety" (CVS) to reduce the risk of BDI. Despite its widespread use, the scientific evidence supporting this technique to prevent BDI is controversial.

          Methods

          Between March 2017 and March 2019, the data of patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 30 Italian surgical departments were collected on a national database. A survey was submitted to all members of Italian Digestive Pathology Society to obtain data on the preoperative workup, the surgical and postoperative management of patients and to judge, at the end of the procedure, if the isolation of the elements was performed according to the CVS. In the case of a declared critical view, iconographic documentation was obtained, finally reviewed by an external auditor.

          Results

          Data from 604 patients were analysed. The study population was divided into two groups according to the evidence (Group A; n = 11) or absence (Group B; N = 593) of BDI and perioperative bleeding.

          The non-use of CVS was found in 54.6% of procedures in the Group A, and 25.8% in the Group B, and evaluating the operator-related variables the execution of CVS was associated with a significantly lower incidence of BDI and intraoperative bleeding.

          Conclusions

          The CVS confirmed to be the safest technique to recognize the elements of the Calot triangle and, if correctly performed, it significantly impacted on preventing intraoperative complications. Additional educational programs on the correct application of CVS in clinical practice would be desirable to avoid extreme conditions that may require additional procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective.

            To apply human performance concepts in an attempt to understand the causes of and prevent laparoscopic bile duct injury. Powerful conceptual advances have been made in understanding the nature and limits of human performance. Applying these findings in high-risk activities, such as commercial aviation, has allowed the work environment to be restructured to substantially reduce human error. The authors analyzed 252 laparoscopic bile duct injuries according to the principles of the cognitive science of visual perception, judgment, and human error. The injury distribution was class I, 7%; class II, 22%; class III, 61%; and class IV, 10%. The data included operative radiographs, clinical records, and 22 videotapes of original operations. The primary cause of error in 97% of cases was a visual perceptual illusion. Faults in technical skill were present in only 3% of injuries. Knowledge and judgment errors were contributory but not primary. Sixty-four injuries (25%) were recognized at the index operation; the surgeon identified the problem early enough to limit the injury in only 15 (6%). In class III injuries the common duct, erroneously believed to be the cystic duct, was deliberately cut. This stemmed from an illusion of object form due to a specific uncommon configuration of the structures and the heuristic nature (unconscious assumptions) of human visual perception. The videotapes showed the persuasiveness of the illusion, and many operative reports described the operation as routine. Class II injuries resulted from a dissection too close to the common hepatic duct. Fundamentally an illusion, it was contributed to in some instances by working too deep in the triangle of Calot. These data show that errors leading to laparoscopic bile duct injuries stem principally from misperception, not errors of skill, knowledge, or judgment. The misperception was so compelling that in most cases the surgeon did not recognize a problem. Even when irregularities were identified, corrective feedback did not occur, which is characteristic of human thinking under firmly held assumptions. These findings illustrate the complexity of human error in surgery while simultaneously providing insights. They demonstrate that automatically attributing technical complications to behavioral factors that rely on the assumption of control is likely to be wrong. Finally, this study shows that there are only a few points within laparoscopic cholecystectomy where the complication-causing errors occur, which suggests that focused training to heighten vigilance might be able to decrease the incidence of bile duct injury.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tokyo Guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (with videos).

              In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo-biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail-out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail-out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ilaria.sgaram@gmail.com
                angela.gurrado@uniba.it
                pascullialessandro@gmail.com
                nic.deangelis@yahoo.it
                dott.riccardomemeo@libero.it
                pretef@gmail.com
                stefano.berti@asl5.liguria.it
                g.cecca2003@libero.it
                marco.rigamonti@apss.tn.it
                francesco.badessi@gmail.com
                nicola.solari@hsanmartino.it
                marco.milone.md@gmail.com
                faustocatena@gmail.com
                stefanoscabini@libero.it
                f_vittore@yahoo.it
                gennaro.perrone@libero.it
                dewerra@unina.it
                ferdinando.cafiero@hsanmartino.it
                mario.testini@uniba.it
                Journal
                Surg Endosc
                Surg Endosc
                Surgical Endoscopy
                Springer US (New York )
                0930-2794
                1432-2218
                11 August 2020
                11 August 2020
                2021
                : 35
                : 7
                : 3698-3708
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7644.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0120 3326, Unit of General Surgery “V. Bonomo”, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, , University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Policlinico, ; Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, 70124 Bari, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.410511.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2149 7878, Department of Digestive Surgery, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Henri Mondor Hospital, , Université Paris-Est (UEP), ; Créteil, France
                [3 ]Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University “Aldo Moro” of Bari, Bari, Italy
                [4 ]GRID grid.415230.1, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 123X, Department of General Surgery, , “Sant’Andrea” Hospital La Spezia, ; La Spezia, Italy
                [5 ]GRID grid.416351.4, ISNI 0000 0004 1789 6237, Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, , San Donato Hospital, ; via Pietro Nenni 20-22, 52100 Arezzo, Italy
                [6 ]Department of General Surgery, Cles Hospital, Cles, Italy
                [7 ]Department of General Surgery, “Clinica Sant’Elena” - Quartu Sant’Elena, Quartu Sant’Elena, Italy
                [8 ]Department of Surgery, IRCSS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
                [9 ]GRID grid.4691.a, ISNI 0000 0001 0790 385X, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, , Federico II” University, ; Napoli, Italy
                [10 ]GRID grid.411482.a, Department of Emergency and Trauma Surgery, , Parma University Hospital, ; Parma, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6087-4119
                Article
                7852
                10.1007/s00464-020-07852-6
                8195809
                32780231
                74d56826-49fa-4e50-961b-5ced67fa3ef7
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 27 February 2020
                : 24 July 2020
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

                Surgery
                cholecystectomy,critical view of safety,laparoscopy,bile duct injuries,intraoperative bleeding,laparoscopic training

                Comments

                Comment on this article