Intraoperative Cholangiography (IOC): Important Aid in Biliary and Common Bile Duct Surgery

2019 ◽  
pp. 91-105
Author(s):  
George Berci ◽  
Brian R. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography

scholarly journals Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Cholangiography and Choledochoscopy

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huihua Cai ◽  
Donglin Sun ◽  
Yueming Sun ◽  
Jianfeng Bai ◽  
Hanlin Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Primary Closure ◽  
Common Bile Duct Exploration ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography

scholarly journals PARAMETERS FOR SELECTIVE INTRAOPERATIVE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF COMMON BILE DUCT STONES

2015 ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Jeremić-Savić ◽  
Milan Radojković ◽  
Slobodan Aranđelovć
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct Stones ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography ◽  
Bile Duct Stones

scholarly journals Agenesis of the gallbladder and cystic duct

2002 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 192-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaques Waisberg ◽  
Paulo Engler Pinto Júnior ◽  
Paula Regina Gusson ◽  
Paola Rossini Fasano ◽  
Antônio Cláudio de Godoy
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Cystic Duct ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography ◽  
Diagnostic Aspects ◽  
Rare Anomaly ◽  
The Common

Agenesis of the gallbladder and cystic duct is a rare anomaly that is usually asymptomatic. The patient may present symptoms characteristic of cholelithiasis. Its surgical confirmation requires careful dissection of the common bile duct and intraoperative cholangiography or ultrasonography to be performed, to exclude the possibility of an ectopic gallbladder. The authors describe two cases of this unusual affection and comment on its clinical, pathophysiological and diagnostic aspects.

Cholecystectomy without Operative Cholangiography in a District Hospital

1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 212-214
Author(s):  
Devanand Puthu ◽  
Ashutosh R Chitnis
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
District Hospital ◽  
Common Bile Duct Exploration ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography ◽  
Operative Cholangiography

Thirty-seven patients underwent cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography. Patients were selected using clinical and investigatory parameters. One patient had a negative common bile duct exploration. During the follow-up period of 2½–3½ years, all patients remained symptomatically and sonologically free of stones.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiography in detection of common bile duct stones

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (04) ◽  
pp. 244-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
KN Jamal ◽  
H Smith ◽  
K Ratnasingham ◽  
MR Siddiqui ◽  
G McLachlan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Common Bile Duct Stones ◽  
Intraoperative Cholangiography ◽  
Attractive Alternative ◽  
Laparoscopic Ultrasonography ◽  
Cbd Stones

Introduction During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is currently regarded as the gold standard in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is an attractive alternative with several potential advantages. Methods A systematic review was undertaken of the published literature comparing LUS with IOC in the assessment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Results Twenty-one comparative studies were analysed. There were 4,566 patients in the IOC group and 5,044 in the LUS group. The combined sensitivity and specificity of IOC in the detection of CBD stones were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83–0.89) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98–0.98) respectively with a pooled area under the curve (AUC) of 0.985 and a diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of 260.65 (95% CI: 160.44–423.45). This compares with a sensitivity and specificity for LUS of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–0.99) respectively with a pooled AUC of 0.982 and a diagnostic OR of 765.15 (95% CI: 450.78–1,298.76). LUS appeared to be more successful in terms of coming to a clinical decision regarding CBD stones than IOC (random effects, risk ratio: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93–0.98, df=20, z=-3.7, p<0.005). Furthermore, LUS took less time (random effects, standardised mean difference: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93–0.98, df=20, z=-3.7, p<0.005). Conclusions LUS is comparable with IOC in the detection of CBD stones. The main advantages of LUS are that it does not involve ionising radiation, is quicker to perform, has a lower failure rate and can be repeated during the procedure as required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document