Details
Category: Volume 05 Issue 12 December 2017
Hits: 1561

Title: Preoperative Predictors for Conversion in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Authors: Prof Dr Braja Mohan Mishra, Dr A.N Behera, Dr Ravi Kumar Jha

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i12.34

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rejuvenated general surgery and in very short time has become the gold standard operation for benign gallbladder disease, but the procedure is technically more demanding than the classical open cholecystectomy. Although introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has dramatically affected the management of patients with biliary disease, but even today there are numerous challenges and unanswered questions that remain, regarding issues related to application of laparoscopic techniques to this very common clinical disorder.  Greater chances of damage to the common bile duct and surrounding viscera exist.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of our study was to evaluate some preoperative factors, which can reliably predict the chances of conversion to the open procedure and the complications during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This may benefit the patients because beforehand information about the possibility of complications and conversion to the open procedure can be made available. The patient can be mentally prepared and can adjust his or her expectations accordingly. In addition, the surgeon can directly perform the classical open cholecystectomy in the patients with presumed difficult surgery thus saving operating time and the conversion rate.

Material and Methods: This prospective study was conducted on 250 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the department of Surgery, VIMSAR, BURLA, and over a period of 24 months from november2015 to november 2017, to evaluate and correlate the clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic findings with the operative findings for anticipating difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The parameters which were studied are age ≥ 65 years, sex, acute cholecystitis, number of acute attacks in the past, history of upper abdominal surgery, WBC count (≥ 10000), total bilirubin (≥ 1.5 mg/dl), ALP (≥ 310 IU/L), gallbladder wall thickness (≥ 4 mm), pericholecystic collection, gallbladder size (contracted gallbladder), stone impaction at neck/cystic duct and Mirizzi’s syndrome.

The risk of organ injury was minimized in our study by using open trocar placement (a Hasson cannula was used). Patients with previous lower abdominal surgeries were also included in our study.

The operative parameters taken to assess the difficulty of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy were total time taken to operate from the insertion of the trocar to the extraction of the gallbladder (more than 90 mins), tear of gallbladder with spillage of bile and stones, and conversion to open cholecystectomy. The surgeons experienced in laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed the surgeries.

Results: In this study the rate of conversion was found to be 7.2%, Male to female ratio was 1:5.62. The majority of patients were in the age group of 41 – 50 years. The mean age was 41.9 with standard deviation of 9.9. The conversion rate is highest in the age group of 51 -60 years. Overall 46 out of 250 patients were predicted to be difficult cases based on clinical parameters out of which 30 were difficult on surgery and 18 out of the 46 cases got converted. Out of 250 patients 13 patients were predicted to be difficult based on biochemical parameters of which 10 were difficult on surgery. Out of 10 difficult cases 4 got converted to open procedure. Out of 250 patients 30 were predicted to be difficult of which 23 were found to be difficult on ultrasonographic parameters. Out of these 23 difficult cases 13 got converted to open procedure. In this study, on multivariate logistic regression analysis male sex, acute cholecystitis, WBC more than 10000/ cumm, contracted gallbladder and stone impaction at neck region were found to be significant predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy. Most common reason for difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conversion to open procedure was adhesions in the Calot’s triangle and with the surrounding structures. The intra-operative complications that occurred in this study were cystic artery tear, bleeding from gallbladder bed, tear of gallbladder and spillage of stones and bile.

Conclusion: From this study, we can conclude that preoperative clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic parameters are good predictors of difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the majority of cases and should be used as a screening procedure. It can help surgeons to get an idea of the potential difficulty to be faced in a particular patient.

References

  1. Bailey and Love: Short practice of surgery, 24th Edition 1995; London, H. K. Lewis and co. Ltd.
  2. Sanabria JR, Golliner S, Croxford R et al. Risk factors in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for conversion to open cholecystectomy. Jr Am Coll Surg 1994; 179: 696-703
  3. Fried GM, Barkun JS, Sigman HH et al. Factors determing conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Am Jr Surg 1994; 167: 35-41?
  4. Sikora SS, Kumar A, Saxena R et al. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - Can conversion be predicted? World Jr Surg 1995; 19: 858-60.
  5. Schrenk P, Woisetschlager R, Rieger R, Wayand WU A diagnostic score to predict the difficulty of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy from preoperative variables. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 148–150.
  6. Alponat A, Kum CK, Koh BC et al. Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World Jr Surg 1997; 21:629-33.
  7. Kama NA, Doganay M, Dolapci M, Reis E, Atli M, Kologlu M. risk factors resulting in conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery. Surg Endosc 2001 Sept; 15(9):965–8.
  8. Tayeb M, Raza SA, Khan MR, Azami R: Conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: Multivariate analysis of preoperative risk factors. J Postgrad Med 2005, 51:17-20
  9. Wing-Hong Li, Colin Wai-Ho Chu and Moon-Tong Cheung. Factors for conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: Is timing important?: Surgical Practice (2009) 13, 42–47
  10. Grace P, Qureshi A, Darzi A, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a hundred consecutive cases. Jr Med J 1991: 84: 12-4.
  11. Cushieri A, Duboisf, Mouiel J, et al. The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1991; 161: 385-7
  12. Davis C, Arrengani M, Nagan R, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: The St. Vincent experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1992; 2:64-9
  13. Chang Mau Lo, Chi Leung, et al. Prospective randomized randomized study of Early versus Delayed Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Annals of Surgery 1998; 227: 4: 461-467
  14. Deitch EA, Utility and accuracy of ultrasonographically measured gallbladder wall as diagnostic criteria in biliary tract disease. Dig Dis Sci 1981;26: 868-93.
  15. Knight JS, Mercer SJ, Somers SS, Walters AM, Sadek SA, Toh SK.Timing of urgent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not influence conversion rate. Br J Surg 2004;91:601-4.
  16. Lindner H. Embryology and anatomy of the biliary tree. In: Way LW, Pellegrini CA (eds) Surgery of the Gallbladder and Bile Ducts. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1987:3–4, 7–8.
  17. Bismuth H. Surgical anatomy and anatomical surgery of the liver. In: Blumgart LH (ed) Surgery of the Liver and Biliary Tract, 2nd Ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1994:3–7.
  18. Rappaport AM. Anatomic considerations. In: Schiff L (ed) Diseases of the Liver, 4th Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975.
  19. Cantlie J. On a new arrangement of the right and left lobes of the liver. J Anat Physiol (Lond) 1898; 32: IV.
  20. Healy JE Jr. Clinical anatomic aspects of radical hepatic surgery. J Int Coll Surg 1954; 22:542.
  21. Chenderovitch J. Les conceptions actielles des mecanismes de la secrection biliarie. Presse Med 1963; 71:2645.
  22. Hicken NF, Coray QB, Franz B. Anatomic variations of the extrahepatic biliary system as seen by cholangiographic studies. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1949; 88:577.
  23. Rappaport AM. Hepatic blood flow: morphologic aspects and physiologic regulation. In: Javitt ND (ed) Liver and Biliary Tract Physiology. Int Rev Physiol 1980:21.
  24. Anson BJ, McVay CB. Surgical Anatomy, 5th Ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1971:597.
  25. Smadja C, Blumgart LH. The biliary tract and the anatomy of biliary exposure. In Blumgart LH (ed) Surgery of the Liver and Biliary Tract, 2nd Ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1994:11–16.
  26. McIndoe AH, Counseller VS. A report on the bilaterality of the liver. Arch Surg 1927; 15:589.
  27. Thaler MM, Way LW. The biliary tract. In: Sleisenger MH, Fordtran JS (eds) Gastrointestinal Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1978:1245.
  28. Hjortsjo CH. The topography of the intrahepatic duct systems. Acta Anat (Basel) 1951; 11:599.
  29. Meyers WC, Jones RS. Anatomy. In: Textbook of Liver and Biliary Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott 1990; 18.
  30. Goss CM (ed). Gray’s Anatomy, 29th American Ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1974.
  31. Rex H. Beitrage zur Morphologie der Saugerleber. Morphol Jahrb 1888; 14:517.
  32. Higgins GM. The biliary tract of certain rodents with and those without a gallbladder. Anat Rec 1926; 32:89.
  33. Schulenberg CAR. Anomalies of the biliary tract as demonstrated by operative cholangiography. Med Proc 1970; 16:351.
  34. Muirhead WR, O’Leary JP. Calot’s triangle: loose interpretation or respectful accuracy? Am Surg 1999; 65(2):186–187.
  35. Nahrwold DL. The biliary system. In: Sabiston DC (ed) Textbook of Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1968:1128.
  36. Sekimoto M, Tomita N, Tamura S, et al. New retraction technique to allow better visualization of Calot’s triangle during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1439–1441.
  37. Hugh TB, Kelly MD, Mekisic A. Rouviere’s sulcus: a useful landmark in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997; 84(9):1253–1254.
  38. Jacobson JB, Brody PA. The transverse common duct. AJR 1981; 136:91.
  39. Hollinshead HW. The liver and the gallbladder. In: Anatomy for Surgeons, 3rd Ed. New York: Hoeber-Harper, 1982.
  40. Job TT. The anatomy of the duodenal portion of the bile and pancreatic ducts. Anat Rec 1926; 32:212.
  41. Boyden EA. The sphincter of Oddi in man and certain representative mammals, Surgery (St. Louis) 1937; 1:25.
  42. Keddie NC, Taylor AW, Sykes PA. The termination of the common bile duct. Br J Surg 1974;61:623.
  43. Linder HH, Pena VA, Ruggieri RA. A clinical and anatomical study of anomalous termination of the common bile duct into the duodenum. Ann Surg 1976;184:626.
  44. Michels NA. Newer anatomy of the liver and its variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J Surg 1966; 112:337?
  45. Charnsangavej C, Chuang VP. Angiog-raphy classification of hepatic arterial collaterals. Radiology 1982; 144:485.
  46. Johnston EV, Anson BJ. Variations in the formation and vascular relationships of the bile ducts. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1952; 94:669.
  47. Nakamura S, Tsuzuki T. Surgical anatomy of the hepatic veins and the inferior vena cava. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981; 152:43.
  48. Mall FP. A study of the structural unit of the liver. Am J Anat 1906; 5:227?
  49. Mallet-Guy P, et al. Recherches experim-entales sur la circulation lymphatique due fofie. I. Donnes immediate sur la permeabilite biliolymphatique. Lyon Chir 1962;58: 847.
  50. Liu C, et al. Factors affecting conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery. Arch Surg 1996; 131:98–101.

Corresponding Author

Dr Ravi Kumar Jha

Post Graduate Student

Department Of General Surgery, Vimsar, Burla , Sambalpur, Odisha, India, Pin: 768017

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Mob no. 7540886610