Dip Fernando D, Asbun Domenech, Rosales-Velderrain Armando, Lo Menzo Emanuele, Simpfendorfer Conrad H, Szomstein Samuel, Rosenthal Raul J
Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, The Bariatric & Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA,
Surg Endosc. 2014 Jun;28(6):1838-43. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3394-5. Epub 2014 Jan 11.
Despite the standardization of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the rate of bile duct injury (BDI) has risen from 0.2 to 0.5%. Routine use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) has not been widely accepted because of its cost and a lack of evidence concerning its use in preventing BDI. Fluorescent cholangiography (FC), which has recently been advocated as an alternative to IOC, is a novel intraoperative procedure involving infrared visualization of the biliary structures. This study evaluated costs and effectiveness of routinely implemented FC and IOC during LC.
Between February and June 2013, the authors prospectively collected the data of all patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We retrospectively reviewed and compared the use of FC and IOC. Procedure time, procedure cost, and effectiveness of the two methods were analyzed and compared. The surgeons involved in the cases completed a survey on the usefulness of each method.
A total of 43 patients (21 males and 22 females) were analyzed during the study period. Mean age was 49.53 ± 14.35 years and mean body mass index was 28.35 ± 8 kg/m(2). Overall mean operative time was 64.95 ± 17.43 min. FC was faster than IOC (0.71 ± 0.26 vs. 7.15 ± 3.76 min; p < 0.0001). FC was successfully performed in 43 of 43 cases (100%) and IOC in 40 of 43 cases (93.02%). FC was less expensive than IOC (US$14.10 ± 4.31 vs. US$778.43 ± 0.40; p < 0.0001). According to the survey, all surgeons found routine use of FC useful.
In this study, FC was effective in delineating important anatomic structures. It required less time and expense than IOC, and was perceived by the surgeons to be easier to perform, and at least as useful as IOC. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of FC in decreasing BDI.
尽管腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)已实现标准化,但胆管损伤(BDI)的发生率却从0.2%升至0.5%。术中胆管造影(IOC)的常规使用尚未被广泛接受,原因在于其成本以及缺乏关于其用于预防BDI的证据。荧光胆管造影(FC)最近被提倡作为IOC的替代方法,它是一种涉及对胆管结构进行红外可视化的新型术中操作。本研究评估了LC期间常规实施FC和IOC的成本及有效性。
在2013年2月至6月期间,作者前瞻性收集了所有接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的数据。我们回顾性审查并比较了FC和IOC的使用情况。分析并比较了两种方法的手术时间、手术成本及有效性。参与这些病例的外科医生完成了关于每种方法实用性的调查。
在研究期间共分析了43例患者(21例男性和22例女性)。平均年龄为49.53±14.35岁,平均体重指数为28.35±8kg/m²。总体平均手术时间为64.95±17.43分钟。FC比IOC更快(0.71±0.26对7.15±3.76分钟;p<0.0001)。43例中的43例(100%)成功实施了FC,43例中的40例(93.02%)成功实施了IOC。FC比IOC成本更低(14.10±4.31美元对778.43±0.40美元;p<0.0001)。根据调查,所有外科医生都发现FC的常规使用很有用。
在本研究中,FC在描绘重要解剖结构方面有效。它比IOC所需时间和费用更少,并且外科医生认为其更易于操作,且至少与IOC一样有用。有必要进行进一步的前瞻性研究以评估FC在降低BDI方面的有效性。