Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic posterior sectoral bile duct injury: the emerging role of nonoperative management with improved long-term results after delayed diagnosis

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Right posterior sectoral bile duct (RPSD) anomalies seen in up to 8% of the population rarely are injured at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Paucity of data on the management of these injuries led the authors to conduct this study aimed at reviewing management strategies for laparoscopic RPSD injuries at a specialist center.

Methods

Of 221 patients, 15 (6.7%; 4 men; mean age, 51 years; range, 21–75 years) treated between 1992 and 2009 for injuries to the RPSD were followed up for a median of 58 months (range, 7–208 months). Case notes, imaging, and follow-up data were reviewed.

Results

The RPSD injury was immediately recognized in 3 (20%) of the 15 patients, whereas in the remaining patients, biliary injury was suspected on day 1 (range, 1–18 days) due to bile leak/biloma. The diagnosis of RPSD injury was made by a combination of investigations including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (n = 11), drain tube cholangiogram (n = 10), on-table cholangiogram (n = 3), and nuclear scan (n = 3). An intact common bile duct and absence of RPSD were identified on cholangiography (ERCP and on-table cholangiogram), whereas drain tube cholangiogram demonstrated a leaking RPSD in all cases. The majority of the patients (8/15, 53%) were managed nonoperatively with combined percutaneous drainage and endoscopic stenting, whereas six patients (40%) were managed with biliary reconstruction (immediate: n = 2; delayed 14–87 days: n = 4). Clinical and radiologic confirmation of complete cessation of bile leak was demonstrated 56 days (range, 7–62 days) after injury. The long-term outcome included a dilated right duct system with transient elevation of liver function tests in two patients (1 each in the nonoperative and surgical management groups), whereas the remaining patients all remain well at this writing.

Conclusion

Bile leak in the presence of an intact common duct shown on cholangiogram should raise the suspicion of an RPSD injury. Expertise is needed to interpret the absence of RPSD in these cases. Drain tube cholangiogram is an important adjunctive investigation. In selected cases, the results of nonoperative management alone is comparable with the results of reconstruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Reuver P, Sprangers M, Rauws E et al (2008) Impact of bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy on quality of life: a longitudinal study after multidisciplinary treatment. Endoscopy 40:637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh R, Henderson J, Vogt D, Brown N (2007) Long-term outcome of biliary reconstruction for bile duct injuries from laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surgery 142:450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Calvete J, Sabater L, Camps B et al (2000) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: myth or reality of the learning curve? Surg Endosc 14:608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Misra M, Schiff J, Rendon G, Rothschild J, Schwaitzberg S (2005) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve: What should we expect? Surg Endosc 19:1266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Georgiades C, Mavromatis T, Kourlaba G et al (2008) Is inflammation a significant predictor of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Surg Endosc 22:1959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strasberg S (2002) Avoidance of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 9:543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Strasberg S, Hertl M, Soper N (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Davidoff A, Pappas T, Murray E et al (1992) Mechanisms of major biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 215:196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kullman E, Borch K, Lindström E, Svanvik J, Anderberg B (1996) Value of routine intraoperative cholangiography in detecting aberrant bile ducts and bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 83:171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyers W, Peterseim D, Pappas T et al (1996) Low insertion of hepatic segmental duct VII–VIII is an important cause of major biliary injury or misdiagnosis. Am J Surg 171:187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Babel N, Sakpal S, Paragi P, Wellen J, Feldman S, Chamberlain R (2009) Iatrogenic bile duct injury associated with anomalies of the right hepatic sectoral ducts: a misunderstood and underappreciated problem. HPB Surg 2009:153269. doi: 10.1155/2009/153269

  12. Chapman W, Abecassis M, Jarnagin W, Mulvihill S, Strasberg S (2003) Bile duct injuries 12 years after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 7:412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Colovic R (2009) Isolated segmental, sectoral, and right hepatic bile duct injuries. World J Gastroenterol 15:1415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perini R, Uflacker R, Cunningham J, Selby J, Adams D (2005) Isolated right segmental hepatic duct injury following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 28:185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Silva M, Coldham C, Mayer A, Bramhall S, Buckels J, Mirza D (2008) Specialist outreach service for on-table repair of iatrogenic bile duct injuries: a new kind of “traveling surgeon”. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaman L, Behera A, Singh R, Katariya R (2004) Management of major bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oh H, Lee S, Lee T et al (2007) Analysis of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy-related complications and the risk factors for those complications. Endoscopy 39:731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ohtsuka T, Chijiiwa K, Yamaguchi K, Akashi Y, Matsunaga H, Miyoshi A (1999) Posterior hepatic duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy finally necessitating hepatic resection: case report. JSLS 3:323

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lillemoe K, Petrofski J, Choti M, Venbrux A, Cameron J (2000) Isolated right segmental hepatic duct injury: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. J Gastrointest Surg 4:168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Christensen R, vanSonnenberg E, Nemcek AJ, D’Agostino H (1992) Inadvertent ligation of the aberrant right hepatic duct at cholecystectomy: radiologic diagnosis and therapy. Radiology 183:549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Strasberg S, Picus D, Drebin J (2001) Results of a new strategy for reconstruction of biliary injuries having an isolated right-sided component. J Gastrointest Surg 5:266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Laurent A, Sauvanet A, Farges O, Watrin T, Rivkine E, Belghiti J (2008) Major hepatectomy for the treatment of complex bile duct injury. Ann Surg 248:77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lichtenstein S, Moorman D, Malatesta J, Martin M (2000) The role of hepatic resection in the management of bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 66:372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomson B, Parks R, Madhavan K, Garden O (2007) Liver resection and transplantation in the management of iatrogenic biliary injury. World J Surg 31:2363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

M. T. P. R. Perera, A. Monaco, M. A. Silva, S. R. Bramhall, A. D. Mayer, J. A. C. Buckels, D. F. Mirza have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Liver Unit, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth NHS Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK

    M. T. P. R. Perera, A. Monaco, M. A. Silva, S. R. Bramhall, A. D. Mayer, J. A. C. Buckels & D. F. Mirza

Authors
  1. M. T. P. R. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Monaco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. R. Bramhall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. D. Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. A. C. Buckels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. F. Mirza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. F. Mirza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perera, M.T.P.R., Monaco, A., Silva, M.A. et al. Laparoscopic posterior sectoral bile duct injury: the emerging role of nonoperative management with improved long-term results after delayed diagnosis. Surg Endosc 25, 2684–2691 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1630-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1630-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation