Bile duct injury repairs: Progressive outcomes in a tertiary referral center

Helmi Khadra, Hillary Johnson, Jason Crowther, Patrick McClaren, Michael Darden, Geoffrey Parker, Joseph F. Buell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy persists as a significant problem in general surgery, resulting in complex injuries, arterial damage, and post repair strictures. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis between 2 eras of bile duct injury repairs: 1987 to 2001 (n = 58) and 2002 to 2016 (n = 52) using logistic regression analyses to assess presentation, repair complexity, and outcomes. Results: No differences in demographics, incidence of cholecystitis, conversion, time to presentation, level of injury, or arterial injury were identified. The second era had an increase in patient age, transhepatic catheter use, prior repair, and utilization of complex repairs. This approach resulted in equivalent complications and mortality rates with increased resource utilization but a lesser incidence of post-repair strictures (P =.004). Regression modeling correlated strictures to prior operative repairs (OR 4.25; P =.016) and a protective effect of repairs performed in the second era (OR 0.23; P =.045). Conclusion: The second era identified a decreasing trend of attempted repairs by referring surgeons but an increase in transhepatic catheters and complex repairs resulting in lesser rates of post-repair stricture. Final regression modeling confirmed increased operative experience decreased post-repair stricture reaffirming the benefits of early identification and referral of bile duct injuries to an experienced hepatobiliary surgeon at a specialty center.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)698-702
Number of pages5
JournalSurgery (United States)
Volume166
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bile duct injury repairs: Progressive outcomes in a tertiary referral center'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this