Anatomical Schemata Revealed by the Critical View of Safety Approach: A Proposal of the Hellenic Task Force on the Typology of Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (HETALCHO)

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most commonly performed operation in general surgery in the Western World. Gallbladder surgery, although most of the time simple, always offers the possibility of unpleasant surprises. Despite progress, the incidence of common bile duct injury is 0.2–0.4%, causing devastating implications for the patient and the surgeon. This is mainly due to the failure to identify the normal anatomy properly. The literature review reveals a lack of structured knowledge in the surgical anatomy of cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to develop a framework with a common anatomical language for safe laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: The Hellenic Task Force group on the typology for Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy performed a critical review of the literature on the laparoscopic anatomy of cholecystectomy. The results were compared with those of a clinical study of 279 patients undergoing LC for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. Results: Fourteen elements encountered during LC under the critical view of safety (CVS) approach were determined. The typical vascular–biliary pedicle with one cystic duct distributed laterally (or caudally) and one cystic artery medially (or cranially) lying at any point of the hepatocystic space was found in 66% of the cases studied. Anatomical schemata were formulated corresponding to the norm and four variations. Conclusions: The proposed cognitive anatomical schemata summarize simply what one can expect in terms of deviation from the norm. We believe that the synergy between the correct application of the CVS and the structured knowledge of the surgical anatomy in cholecystectomy helps the surgeon to handle non-typical structures safely and to complete the laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy without vascular–biliary injuries.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.