Cystic Lymph Node Identification Is More Reliable Than Critical View of Safety in Difficult Cholecystectomies
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The cystic lymph node (CLN) represents an anatomic safety marker and a surrogate marker of technique during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We aim to demonstrate the value of CLN in comparison to the critical view of safety (CVS) and study the effects of increasing difficulty on the 2 approaches. METHODS: A prospective study of consecutive LC was conducted. Patient demographics, type of admission, clinical presentation, operative difficulty grade, visualization of CLN, identification of CVS, operative time, and complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 393 LCs, half of the admissions were emergencies. Thirty-four percent had obstructive jaundice or acute cholecystitis. The CLN was visually identified in 81.7% with a small difference between operative difficulty grades 1 to 3 versus 4 to 5. Although CVS was unachievable in 62 patients, 43 (69.4%) still had an identifiable CLN. The median operating time was 68 minutes with 1 mortality but no conversions or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the CLN during LC could compliment the CVS in avoiding major ductal injury. Dissecting lateral to the CLN to commence the process of displaying the cystic pedicle structures may be a strategy in safely achieving the CVS. During the more difficult LC where displaying the CVS is impossible, the CLN may be the key anatomic landmark.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cystic Lymph Node Identification Is More Reliable Than Critical View of Safety in Difficult Cholecystectomies
- Date Crossref
- 20/01/2021
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.