Clinical value of intra-operative ultrasonography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The correct identification of biliary anatomy and bile duct injury (BDI) prevention represent important topics of debate in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), which is considered the first widely accepted “gold standard” laparoscopic approach in general surgery. The article entitled “Laparoscopic ultrasonography as an alternative to intra-operative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy” is an interesting review analyzing the clinical value of intra-operative laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) during cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic BDI is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality, increased healthcare costs and frequent medico-legal litigation (1). It has been demonstrated that the primary cause of BDI is the misinterpretation of the biliary anatomy (71–97% of patients) (2). In order to better identify the anatomy of biliary tree during LC, various methods have been described and proposed, including intra-operative cholangiography, near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography (NIRF-C) (3-6) and LUS. We would like to highlight several discussion points in this manuscript. First of all, the authors identified 18 reports from 2000 to 2016 with 13 prospective non-randomized trials and five retrospective trials. No randomized controlled trials were conducted (7). The article focused on the role of LUS regarding the correct identification of anatomical biliary mapping, especially in such difficult situations (i.e., acute or chronic inflammatory disease, fibrosis) where the anatomy is altered, the ability to prevent or detect bile duct injuries during surgery, the capacity to identify intra-operatively common bile duct stones. Overall, the rate of identification of biliary tree with LUS ranged from 92–100%, with only four manuscripts providing an accurate identification rate of all biliary ducts. The results underlined the advantage to use LUS both before and after Calot’s dissection. The preliminary Calot’s dissection is very important to better visualize the extrahepatic biliary tree. The authors reported that a preliminary dissection of Calot’s triangle led to an overall increase in the identification of biliary structures, 84% vs. 98% before and after Calot’s dissection, respectively (8).

Gwinn et al. (9) reported that LUS was also very helpful in avoiding conversion to open surgery in 91% of patients, without bile duct injuries observed. Concerning the ability of the technique to prevent or detect BDI, there are very few reports. Across the studies reviewed, Dili et al. (7) no reported BDIs and only two studies emphasized the importance of combining the critical view of safety (CVS) method (10) with LUS. We think that the correct establishment of the CVS still represents the crucial method for a safe LC, as recently reported by Research Institute Against Cancer of the Digestive System (IRCAD) Recommendations Group (11). At the same time, any effort to reduce the risk of biliary injury and to improve the establishment of CVS is considerably appreciated. Concerning the detection of biliary stones, a recent meta-analysis confirmed that LUS is superior to intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in detecting bile duct stones (12), with only exceptional false positive. In general, LUS is a safe and cost-effective procedure and may represent a useful tool to guide the surgeon during dissection, but we think that the true problem of LUS is represented by the difficult learning curve. Machi et al. (13) reported that 50–100 operations were necessary for a surgeon to be able to correctly assess the biliary anatomy using LUS. We think that an educational program with a certain learning period is necessary for LUS. For these reasons, the method remains under-used, as confirmed by the lack of randomized controlled trials and the presence of limited studies.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Laparoscopic Surgery. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/ls.2018.03.03). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Pesce A, Portale TR, Minutolo V, et al. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography: a retrospective study on 1,100 selected patients. Dig Surg 2012;29:310-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Portale TR, Minutolo V, Li Destri G, et al. Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: our experience. Chirurgia 2011;24:197-9.
3. Pesce A, Piccolo G, La Greca G, et al. Utility of fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:7877-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Pesce A, Latteri S, Barchitta M, et al. Near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography - real-time visualization of the biliary tree during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2017. [Epub ahead of print].
5. Diana M. Fluorescence-guided surgery applied to the digestive system: the cybernetic eye to see the invisible. Cir Esp 2018;96:65-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Diana M, Soler L, Agnus V, et al. Prospective Evaluation of Precision Multimodal Gallbladder Surgery Navigation: Virtual Reality, Near-infrared Fluorescence, and X-ray-based Intraoperative Cholangiography. Ann Surg 2017;266:890-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Dili A, Bertrand C. Laparoscopic ultrasonography as an alternative to intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:5438-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Hashimoto M, Matsuda M, Watanabe G. Intraoperative ultrasonography for reducing bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2010;57:706-9. [PubMed]
9. Gwinn EC, Daly S, Deziel DJ. The use of laparoscopic ultrasound in difficult cholecystectomy cases significantly decreases morbidity. Surgery 2013;154:909-15; discussion 915-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Strasberg SM, Brunt LM. Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:132-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Conrad C, Wakabayashi G, Asbun HJ, et al. IRCAD recommendation on safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2017;24:603-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Jamal KN, Smith H, Ratnasingham K, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiography in detection of common bile duct stones. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016;98:244-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Machi J, Johnson JO, Deziel DJ, et al. The routine use of laparoscopic ultrasound decreases bile duct injury: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2009;23:384-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]