HM Medical Clinic

Some reviews of clomid noted that the drug can also cause weight gain, hair loss and vision impairment clomid price The information is provided for informational purposes only and is not a guide for self .

Cialis ne doit pas être prise à tous. Il est important que cialis en ligne est prescrit par un médecin, bien se familiariser avec les antécédents médicaux du patient. Ich habe Probleme mit schnellen Montage. Lesen Sie Testberichte Nahm wie cialis rezeptfrei 30 Minuten vor dem Sex, ohne Erfolg. Beginn der Arbeiten nach 4 Stunden, links ein Freund ein trauriges Ja, und Schwanz in sich selbst nicht ausstehen, wenn es keinen Wunsch ist.

Guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery

SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Laparoscopic
Biliary Tract Surgery

I. PREAMBLE
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for patients requiring theremoval of the gallbladder. In 1992, an NIH consensus development conference concluded"laparoscopic cholecystectomy provides a safe and effective treatment for most patients withsymptomatic gallstones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears to have become the procedureof choice for many of these patients"[1] SAGES first offered guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic cholecystectomy inMay 1990. These guidelines have periodically been updated and the last guideline in November2002 expanded the guidelines to include all laparoscopic biliary tract surgery.
This document updates and replaces the previous guideline.
The current recommendations are graded and linked to the evidence utilizing the definitions inappendices A and B.
Clinical practice guidelines are intended to indicate the best available approach to medicalconditions as established by systematic review of available data and expert opinion.
Recommendations are not intended to be exclusive given the complexity of the health careenvironment. These guidelines are intended to be flexible and should be applied withconsideration of the unique needs of individual patients and the evolving medical literature.
These guidelines are applicable to all physicians who are appropriately credentialed andaddress the clinical situation in question, regardless of specialty.
Guidelines are developed under the auspices of SAGES and the Guidelines Committee, andare approved by the Board of Governors. Each guideline undergoes multidisciplinary review andis considered valid at the time of production based on data available. Recent developments inmedical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed, and guidelines willbe updated on a periodic basis.
The indications for laparoscopic operations on the gallbladder and biliary tree have not changedsince the 1992 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement onGallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy;[1] they remain similar to the indications for opensurgery with relative and absolute contraindications as noted below. As stated in the NIH report"most patients with symptomatic gallstones are candidates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ifthey are able to tolerate general anesthesia and have no serious cardiopulmonary diseases or SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
other co-morbid conditions that preclude operation". The indications include but are not limitedto symptomatic cholelithiasis, biliary dyskinesia, acute cholecystitis, and complications related tocommon bile duct stones including pancreatitis (see additional references provided in sectionsbelow). Asymptomatic gallstones are generally not an indication for laparoscopiccholecystectomy.[2-7] Indications for laparoscopic operations on the gallbladder and biliary tree
Include but are not limited to symptomatic cholelithiasis, biliary dyskinesia, acutecholecystitis, and complications related to common bile duct stones includingpancreatitis with few relative or absolute contraindications.(Level II, Grade A).
IV. RELATIVE CONTRA-INDICATIONS AND INDICATIONS FOR
PLANNED OPEN PROCEDURES

Relative contra-indications for laparoscopic biliary tract surgery include many of the usual contra-indications for laparoscopic surgery in general. These include, but are not limited to, generalizedperitonitis, septic shock from cholangitis, severe acute pancreatitis, untreated coagulopathy,lack of equipment, lack of surgeon expertise, previous abdominal operations which prevent safeabdominal access or progression of the procedure, advanced cirrhosis with failure of hepaticfunction, and suspected gallbladder cancer.[1] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be performedsafely in patients with cirrhosis and acute cholecystitis (see additional references provided insections below), but there are cases in which the open approach may be safer. Indications forplanned open procedures include a patient's informed request for an open procedure, knowndense adhesions in the upper abdomen, known gallbladder cancer, and surgeon preference.
Relative contra-indications for laparoscopic biliary tract surgery
Untreated coagulopathy, lack of equipment, lack of surgeon expertise, hostile abdomen,advanced cirrhosis/liver failure, and suspected gallbladder cancer.(Level II, Grade A).
V. PRE OPERATIVE PREPARATION
A. Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Preoperative antibiotics in elective laparoscopic biliary tract surgeryhave been discussed with strong opinions on both sides. A recent meta-analysis of randomizedcontrolled trials concluded prophylactic antibiotics do not prevent infections in low risk patientsundergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, while the usefulness of prophylaxis in high riskpatients (age > 60 years, the presence of diabetes, acute colic within 30 days of operation,jaundice, acute cholecystitis, or cholangitis) remains uncertain.[8] The most recent randomized,prospective study included in the above mentioned meta-analysis showed no difference in thepostoperative wound infection rate, although the control group had a 1.5% infection rate and theantibiotic group had a 0.7% infection rate; since there was a total of 277 patients in the study, aType II error might have been committed.[9] Among papers suggesting antibiotic prophylaxis ishelpful is a recent randomized study which found fewer wound infections with ampicillin-sulbactam versus cefuroxime, particularly for infection caused by enterococcus in the setting of SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
high-risk patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy.[10] If antibiotics are used they should belimited to a single preoperative dose given within one hour of skin incision, and re-dosed if theprocedure is more than 4 hours long.[11] Antibiotics are not required in low risk patients undergoing laparoscopiccholecystectomy. (Level I, Grade A).
Antibiotics may reduce the incidence of wound infection in high risk patients (age > 60years, the presence of diabetes, acute colic within 30 days of operation, jaundice, acutecholecystitis, or cholangitis). (Level I, Grade B).
If given, they should be limited to a single preoperative dose given within one hour ofskin incision. (Level II, Grade A).
B. Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis. This prophylaxis is necessary for most laparoscopicbiliary tract procedures and is addressed in a separate SAGES guideline[12] and should consistof either pneumatic compression stockings or subcutaneous Heparin given prior to operation inpatients with two or more risk factors. See the above referenced citation for further information.
Deep Venous Thrombosisprophylaxis
Prophylaxis is addressed in a separate SAGES guideline.[12] VI. BASIC OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
A.Room set-up and patient positioning. There are two basic room set-ups for performinglaparoscopic biliary tract surgery. The first is the standard supine position with the surgeonstanding at the patient's left and monitors at the head of the bed on both sides. The second iswith the patient in stirrups the surgeon standing between the legs. The latter is commonly usedin Europe and the former in the Americas. Some surgeons tuck the left arm to improve theworking space of the operating surgeon. The patient is generally placed in a reverseTrendelenburg position and rotated right side up. The SAGES manual[13] describes room set-up,patient positioning, and the remainder of the procedure in further detail.
Room set-up and patient positioning:
With no data to guide choices, surgeon preference should dictate room set-up. (Level III,Grade A).
B. Equipment needed for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The equipment needed forlaparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiography is well established withspecific preferences left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. The equipment needed forlaparoscopic common bile duct exploration is also at the discretion of the operating surgeon and SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
should be available if that is a possibility when performing cholecystectomy. One potentialapproach to equipment selection is covered in the SAGES manual.[13] In the absence of data, surgeon preference should dictate choice of equipment. (LevelIII, Grade A).
C. Abdominal access. There are a variety of techniques for gaining initial abdominal access forlaparoscopic surgery; these include: 1) Veress needle. 2) The open Hasson technique. 3) Directtrocar placement without prior pneumoperitoneum. 4) The optical view technique, in which thelaparoscope is placed within the trocar so that the layers of the abdominal wall are visualized asthey are being traversed. In general, all of the mentioned approaches to abdominal access aresafe. A recent metaanalysis[14] of 17 randomized controlled trials studying a total of 3,040individuals comparing a variety of open and closed access techniques found no difference incomplication rates; potentially life threatening injuries to blood vessels occurred in 0.9 per 1000procedures and to the bowel in 1.8 per 1000 procedures. Currently, there are no demonstrabledifferences in the safety of open versus closed techniques for establishing access and creatingthe initial pneumoperitoneum, therefore decisions regarding choice of technique are left to thesurgeon and should be based on individual training, skill, and case assessment.[15] There are no demonstrable differences in the safety of open versus closed techniquesfor establishing access; decisions regarding choice of technique are left to the surgeonand should be based on individual training, skill, case assessment. (Level I, Grade A).
D. Safe technique. The safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is based largely on determiningthe anatomy of the cystic duct, common bile duct, cystic artery and hepatic arteries. Since majorbile duct injuries with laparoscopic cholecystectomy are most frequently due to ductmisidentification[16, 17], techniques for prevention and/or recognition focus primarily on carefulanatomic definition[18] to ensure the "critical view" prior to dividing any structures[19, 20] includingdissection 1) to completely expose and delineate the hepatocystic triangle, 2) to identify a singleduct and a single artery entering the gallbladder, and 3) to completely dissect the lower part ofthe gallbladder off the liver bed. Though the protective effect of the practice continues to bedebated, routine use of intraoperative cholangiography may decrease the risk or severity ofinjury and improve injury recognition.[17, 21-23] The general principle of not dividing any structureuntil you are certain of its identification applies here; the need for caution and vigilance cannotbe overstated given evidence which supports visual misperception as an underlying cause ofmajor bile duct injury[24], coupled with the potential for complacency which may result from therarity of bile duct injuries.
The safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy requires correct identification of relevant SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
anatomy. (Level I, Grade A).
Intraoperative cholangiogram may reduce the rate or severity of injury and improveinjury recognition. (Level II, Grade B).
E. Common Bile Duct Assessment. The primary methods for assessing the common bile ductfor stones or injury during cholecystectomy are intraoperative cholangiogram and intraoperativeultrasound.
1. Intraoperative cholangiography has been used for many years; fluoroscopy saves time and has improved its usefulness. The issue of routine verses selective cholangiographyhas been long debated. Studies have suggested routine use of intraoperativecholangiography may decrease the risk of injury and improve injury recognition whileothers have suggested cholecystectomy may be performed without cholangiogram withlow rates of injury.[17, 21-23] In residency programs, a policy of routine cholangiographymay be supported by the need to train residents how to do that portion of theprocedure.[25] In addition, the skills developed and maintained by routinecholangiography provide a platform for progression to transcystic clearing or stenting ofthe common bile duct[25]; in many cases clearing can be accomplished with simplemeasures such as administration of glucagon and flushing with saline.[26] In terms ofdetecting bile duct stones, 2-12% of patients will have choledocholithiasis on routineintraoperative cholangiogram, and recent studies suggest as many as 10% of these areunsuspected prior to operation.[27-29] A meta-analysis performed in 2004[30] revealed thatthe incidence of unsuspected retained stones was 4% with only 15% of these going onto cause clinical problems. The conclusion from that study was that a selective policyshould be advocated, though creating a reliable algorithm for predicting the presence ofstones and thus the need for selective cholangiogram has been unsuccessful.[31, 32] 2. Laparoscopic ultrasound. This technique has been used increasingly; while it does not by itself offer potentially therapeutic access to the bile ducts, it does help delineaterelevant anatomy including bile ducts and vascular structures, and can diagnosecholedocholithiasis without opening the biliary system, all without exposure to ionizingradiation. Several recent studies have examined the use of laparoscopic ultrasoundduring cholecystectomy. Potential advantages and disadvantages of the technique havebeen summarized by Perry et.al.; advantages include high rates of successful studies,the ability to repeat the examination during difficult dissections, less time required forcompletion, and lower overall cost, while disadvantages include technical difficulties forcertain patients, inability to confirm the flow of bile into the duodenum, and theexperience required to learn the technique of examination and image interpretation.[33]The authors of the included studies used the technique routinely with no reported bileduct injuries and minor bile leaks due to secondary to liver bed injury a rare event(0.2%), and with high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of common bile ductstones.[33-36] Common Bile Duct Assessment:
Intraoperative cholangiography may decrease the risk of bile duct injury when usedroutinely and allows access to the biliary tree for therapeutic intervention; reliable SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
algorithms to determine the need for selective cholangiography have yet to bedeveloped. (Level II, Grade B).
In experienced hands, intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound helps delineate relevantanatomy, detect bile duct stones, and decrease the risk of bile duct injury. (Level II,Grade B).
F. Management of choledocholithiasis.
1. 1. Approaches to suspected choledocholithiasis. With increasing laparoscopic expertise, exploration the common bile duct either via the cystic duct or by primarycholedochotomy has become a viable option, but the treatment of symptomatic orsuspected common bile duct stones in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy remainsa complex and controversial issue. Leaving aside open cholecystectomy/bile ductexploration, which is superior to ERCP for stone clearance[37], as described by Kharbutliand Velanovich[38] there are two approaches to patients with possible choledocholithiasiswho are undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, both for patients who areasymptomatic undergoing elective cholecystectomy, and for patients with recentepisodes of jaundice or gallstone pancreatitis: (1) laparoscopic cholecystectomy withintraoperative cholangiogram, then address choledocholithiasis if found, or (2)preoperative ERCP to diagnosis and remove choledocholithiasis, followed bylaparoscopic cholecystectomy. For choice (1), a number of additional choices arepossible for stones found during intraoperative imaging studies: (A) transcysticlaparoscopic common bile duct exploration, (B) common bile duct exploration viacholedochotomy), (C) Placement of an endobiliary stent, (D) postoperative ERCP, andintraoperative ERCP. Several recent studies including at least two meta-analyses haveattempted to compare the relative merits of the above approaches, and one stagetreatment combining laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile ductexploration usually prevails in terms of cost with no discernable difference in morbidityand mortality. With that said, pre-operative ERCP should not be used for diagnosisalone; routine pre-operative ERCP will likely result in a higher than acceptable mortalityand morbidity rates with some unnecessary procedures. The single stage laparoscopicor the combined laparoscopic with intraoperative endoscopic approaches require time,equipment, and a degree of skill and experience which are not universal amongsurgeons and facilities performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Finally, post-operativeERCP leads to longer hospital stays with increased numbers of procedures required totreat the problem.[37-44] 1. Transcystic common bile duct exploration. Given the scope of issues detailed above, the choice of technique to treat common duct stones will likely dependlargely on local expertise. However, both short and long term data from anumber of studies suggest transcystic common bile duct exploration, which maybe augmented by choledocoscopy, is as safe and efficacious as other minimallyinvasive approaches.[31, 37, 40, 45-49] The postoperative course after successfultranscystic clearance is similar to laparoscopic cholecystectomy alone.[25, 45]Transcystic stone clearance may be hampered by analomous anatomy, proximal(hepatic duct) stones, strictures and large (>6mm) or numerous stones (>5).[25, 31,40, 47] SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
2. Choledochotomy. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy requires advanced laparoscopic skills and longer operativetimes; most authors see choledochotomy as an alternative to failed transcysticexploration though some explore via choledochotomy exclusively, all withgenerally good results in terms of stone clearance. The open bile duct may beaddressed with closure over a T-tube, an exteriorized transcystic drain, orprimary closure with or without endoluminal drainage.[49-51] Closure over a T-tubemay be required if the common bile duct is inflamed[52] and in any case allows forpostoperative radiographic evaluation of the biliary system, the possibility ofextraction of retained stones, and the possibility of a controlled biliary fistula, butcan be complicated by premature dislodgement, bile leak and peritonitis,localized pain, prolonged fistula, and late biliary stricture.[50] Studies comparingprimary closure versus T-tube drainage suggest similar rates of complicationswith shorter operating times and a trend toward shorter hospital stays withprimary closure.[51, 53] 3. Laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement. This treatment option for choledocholithiasis effectively bridges the gap between laparoscopic commonbile duct exploration and ERCP; the technique involves placing a stent throughthe cystic duct into the common bile duct and across the ampulla of Vater, thenclosing the cystic duct. The advantages of this approach include decompressionof the biliary tree allowing the option of semi-elective postoperative ERCP whichfor most patients maintains the minimally invasive approach and ambulatorynature of laparoscopic cholecystectomy; the stent adds little operative time to theprocedure, the stent facilitates ERCP and stone clearance while potentiallyreducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and deployment does notrequire advanced laparoscopic skills.[54-57] 4. ERCP with stone extraction. ERCP with stone extraction is another alternative when faced with choledocholithiasis; it may be performed before, during or aftercholecystectomy. As dicussed by Costi et.al.[58], "performing ERCP beforesurgery raises questions regarding patient selection because systematicpreoperative ERCP before LC means an intolerably great number ofunnecessary and potentially harmful procedures. Complex scoring systemsaimed at identifying asymptomatic patients to undergo ERCP have not beenadopted as clinical practice, nor have new examinations such as echoendoscopyand biliary magnetic resonance imaging (MRCP), which are costly and notalways available. Performing ERCP contextually to LC implies organizationalproblems concerning the availability of an endoscopist in the operating theaterwhenever needed. Finally, performing ERCP after surgery would raise thedilemma of managing CBD stones whenever ERCP fails to retrieve thembecause a third procedure would then be needed." With no discernabledifference in morbidity and mortality and similar clearance rates when comparedto laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, duct clearance with postoperativeERCP is a viable alternative.[37-44] While, in experienced hands, the twoapproaches are at least equivalent, there are surgeons for whom the preferredapproach is ERCP with stone extraction.[41] However, unless performedintraoperatively, ERCP requires at least one additional procedure, and does SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
have associated complications such as pancreatitis, bleeding, and duodenalperforation, and as noted above, ERCP may fail, leading to multiple proceduresfor stone clearance. As described by Karaliotas et.al., the following entitiesincrease the possibility of failure of endoscopic CBD stone clearance: stoneimpaction, gastrectomy or Roux-en-y anatomy, recurrent bile duct stones stonesafter prior open exploration of the CBD and biliodigestive anastomosis,periampullary diverticula, and Mirizzi syndrome. [52] 2. Altered anatomy. Rearrangement of the upper gastrointestinal tract can make it difficult, if not impossible, to perform standard ERCP. With the recent increase in the number ofRoux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed for morbid obesity, it becomes evermore likely that surgeons will encounter patients who have gallstone disease and limitedendoscopic access to the biliary system. As described by Ahmed et.al, options fortreatment include percutaneous transhepatic instrumentation of the common bile duct,percutaneous transgastric ERCP, laparoscopic transgastric ERCP, transenteric ERCP,retrograde endoscopy in which the scope is passed antegrade down to thejejunojejunostomy and then retrograde up the biliopancreatic limb, and open orlaparoscopic common bile duct exploration.[59] Management of Choledocholithiasis:
There are several approaches and current data does not suggest clear superiority of anyone approach; decisions regarding treatment are most appropriately made based onsurgeon preference as well as the availability of equipment and skilled personnel. (LevelI, Grade A).
Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration may employ a number oftechniques from simple to advanced; it is frequently successful, but may be hamperedby analomous anatomy, proximal stones, strictures and large or numerous stones.
(Level II, Grade B).
Laparoscopic choledochotomy requires advanced laparoscopic skills, but has goodclearance rates; the open bile duct may be addressed with closure over a T-tube, anexteriorized transcystic drain, or primary closure with or without endoluminaldrainage.(Level II, Grade B).
Laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement adds little operative time to thecholecystectomy, and facilitates ERCP and stone clearance.(Level II, Grade B).
ERCP with stone extraction may be performed selectively before, during or aftercholecystectomy with little discernable difference in morbidity and mortality and similarclearance rates when compared to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, thoughroutinely performed preoperative ERCP will likely result in unnecessary procedures withhigher than acceptable mortality and morbidity rates. (Level I, Grade A).
G.Dissection of the gallbladder from the liver bed. The conventional technique for dissection ofthe gallbladder from the liver bed is to start from the gallbladder infundibulum and worksuperiorly using electrocautery to remove the gallbladder from the bed. The technique of topdown dissection has also been advocated, particularly in cases with significantinflammation.[60-62] Ultrasonic dissection has been studied for dissection of the gallbladder fromthe liver bed, as well as division and sealing of the cystic artery and cystic duct without clips; in SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
prospective randomized trials, ultrasonic dissection has been found to be comparable in termsof operative times, gallbladder perforation, bleeding, and bile leak.[61, 63] In addition,hydrodissection with a high-pressure water stream has been used to dissect the gallbladderfrom the liver bed.[64] The standard technique works well and, with no compelling data to usethese alternative techniques, the choice is left to the operating surgeon.
Dissection of the gallbladder from the liver bed:
The more conventional approach starting at the gallbladder infundibulum and workingsuperiorly, or the top down approach, may be used with electrocautery, ultrasonicdissection, or hydrodissection as the surgeon prefers. (Level II, Grade B).
H.Extraction of the gallbladder. The gallbladder is generally extracted from either the epigastricport or the umbilical port. The decision is left up to the operating surgeon. Some surgeons use a5 mm port in the epigastric position, necessitating removal through the umbilicus. Likewise,most difficult extractions due to the large size of the gallbladder should be done through theumbilicus because it is easier to expand the fascial incision. The use of an endoscopic bag isalso at the discretion of the operating surgeon. There are no randomized studies to guide use ofthese techniques.
Extraction of the gallbladder:
With no data to guide choice of technique, the gallbladder may be extracted as thesurgeon prefers. (Level III, Grade C).
I.Use of drains. While use of drains postoperatively after laparoscopic biliary tract surgery is atthe discretion of the operating surgeon, recent studies including a randomized controlled trialand meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials found drain use after elective laparoscopiccholecystectomy increases post-operative pain, wound infection rates and delays hospitaldischarge; the authors furthered stated they could not find evidence to support the use of drainsafter laparoscopic cholecystectomy.[65, 66] Use of Drains:
Drains are not needed after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and their use mayincrease complication rates. (Level I, Grade A).
Drains may be useful in complicated cases particularly if choledochotomy is performed.
(Level III, Grade C).
J.Conversion to laparotomy. Conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy should notbe considered a complication, but is rather an attempt to avoid complications and ensure patientsafety.[67] Factors which are associated with conversion to open cholecystectomy include: acutecholecystitis with a thickened gallbladder wall, previous upper abdominal surgery, male gender,advanced age, obesity, bleeding, bile duct injury, and choledocholithiasis.[67-73] Ultimately,individual surgeons must base the decision to convert to an open procedure on their own SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
intraoperative assessment, weighing the severity of inflammatory changes, clarity of theanatomy, and their skill/comfort in proceeding.[72] Overall conversion rates have been reportedto be between 2-15%[67], and in cases of acute cholecystitis from 6-35%.[71] Conversion to laparotomy:
Conversion should not be considered a complication and surgeons should have a lowthreshold for conversion; the decision to convert to an open procedure must be basedon intraoperative assessment weighing the clarity of the anatomy and the surgeon'sskill/comfort in proceeding. (Level II, Grade A).
VII. INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS
A.Access injuries. Establishing access and creating the initial pneumoperitoneum necessary toperform laparoscopic biliary tract procedures may lead to significant complications. Reviews ofdata regarding device-related injury and death as reported to the Food and DrugAdministration(FDA)[74] as well as thorough reviews of the available literature[15] suggestvascular and visceral injuries are the major causes of morbidity and mortality related toabdominal access. The true rates of injury are difficult to gauge; injuries are probablyunderreported both to the FDA and in the literature, and there is a paucity of prospective data,but it is likely that injuries which occur while establishing pneumoperitoneum account for asignificant proportion of complications during laparoscopy.[15, 74, 75] Laparoscopiccholecystectomy is the procedure most frequently associated with both fatal and nonfatal trocarinjuries, and almost all fatal injuries were made with shielded or optical trocars.[74] A recentmetaanalysis of 17 randomized controlled trials studying a total of 3,040 individuals comparing avariety of open and closed access techniques found no difference in complication rates;potentially life threatening injuries to blood vessels occurred in 0.9 per 1000 procedures and tothe bowel in 1.8 per 1000 procedures. [14] Currently, there are no demonstrable differences inthe safety of open versus closed techniques for establishing access and creating the initialpneumoperitoneum, therefore decisions regarding choice of technique are left to the surgeonand should be based on individual training, skill, and case assessment.[15] A high index ofsuspicion and prompt conversion to laparotomy are required to recognize and treatcomplications related to access.
There are no demonstrable differences in the safety of open versus closed techniquesfor establishing access; decisions regarding choice of technique are left to the surgeonand should be based on individual training, skill, case assessment. (Level I, Grade A).
A high index of suspicion and prompt conversion to laparotomy are required torecognize and treat complications related to access.(Level III, Grade A).
B.Common bile duct injuries. A great deal continues to be written about bile duct injuries inlaparoscopic cholecystectomy, which serves to underscore the seriousness of the complicationand the perception that it can and should be avoided. The current rate of major bile duct injury SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
in laparoscopic cholecystectomy has stabilized at 0.1-0.6%[18, 21-23, 76-78] and series with no majorbile duct injuries have been reported[20] ; while many believe the rate of major bile duct injury inopen cholecystectomy is lower than laparoscopic cholecystectomy, controversy remains.[76, 78] Ahost of factors have been associated with bile duct injury including surgeon experience, thepatient's age, male sex, [22] and acute cholecystitis, though the effect acute cholecystitis has oninjury rates remains controversial.[23, 79, 80] Bile duct injuries which occur with laparoscopiccholecystectomy frequently involve complete disruption and excision of ducts, and may beassociated with hepatic vascular injuries.[81-83] If major bile duct injuries do occur, whetherrecognized at the time of the primary operation or in the postoperative period, outcomes areimproved by early recognition and by referring patients immediately to experienced specialistsfor further diagnosis and treatment. Repair should not be attempted by the primary surgeonunless the primary surgeon has significant experience in biliary reconstruction.[77, 84-86] Sincemajor bile duct injuries with laparoscopic cholecystectomy are most frequently due to ductmisidentification[16, 17], techniques for prevention and/or recognition focus primarily on carefulanatomic definition[18] to ensure the "critical view" prior to dividing any structures[19, 20] andthough the protective effect of the practice continues to be debated, use of intraoperativecholangiography may decrease the rate or the severity of common bile duct injury.[17, 21-23] Common bile duct injuries:
Factors which have been associated bile duct injury include surgeon experience, patientage, male sex, and acute cholecystitis. (Level II, Grade C).
The safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy requires correct identification of relevantanatomy. (Level I, Grade A).
Intraoperative cholangiogram may reduce the rate or severity of injury and improveinjury recognition. (Level II, Grade B).
If major bile duct injuries occur, outcomes are improved by early recognition andimmediate referral to experienced hepatobiliary specialists for further treatment beforeany repair is attempted by the primary surgeon, unless the primary surgeon hassignificant experience in biliary reconstruction.(Level II, Grade A).
VIII. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.Biliary dyskinesia. Patients with symptoms of biliary obstruction without evidence ofgallstones, but with abnormal gall bladder emptying may benefit from laparoscopiccholecystectomy.[87-92] Symptoms may include episodic, severe, steady pain, frequently withfatty food intolerance, located in the right upper quadrant or epigastrium, with or withoutradiation to the back or shoulder lasting at least 30 minutes but less than several hours, andmay potentially be associated with nausea and vomiting.[89, 90] Abnormal gallbladder emptying isusually defined as a gallbladder ejection fraction of less than 35% with cholescintigraphy afterinjection of cholecystokinin.[88-90] Severe symptoms, a very low gallbladder ejection fraction ( 65years) may be associated with higher morbidity and mortality[122, 123].
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the preferred approach in patients withacute cholecystitis. (Level II, Grade B).
Early cholecystectomy (within 24-72 hours of diagnosis) may be performed withoutincreased rates of conversion to an open procedure, without an increased risk ofcomplications, and may decrease cost and total length of stay. (Level I, Grade A).
In critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis, radiographically guided percutaneouscholecystostomy is an effective temporizing measure until the patient recoverssufficiently to undergo cholecystectomy. (Level II, Grade B).
C.Gallstone pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis caused by gallstones is an important indication forcholecystectomy. The incidence of acute pancreatitis due to gallstones appears to beincreasing.[124, 125] Based on a study of one large state's discharge data, one-third of cases ofacute pancreatitis among US adults are caused by gallstones with an incidence of gallstonepancreatitis of approximately 14.5 per 100,000, [125] which translates into 31,500 cases per yearnationally. While laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the preferred approach forremoving the source of stones,[126] the timing of the cholecystectomy, as well as the choice andtiming of procedures for evaluating and clearing associated common bile duct stones, remaincontroversial, particularly in cases of mild, self-limited gallstone pancreatitis. There is agreementthat severe pancreatitis with ongoing multi system organ failure requires immediate clearing ofany biliary obstruction, usually with ERCP, followed by supportive care until the patient recoverssufficiently to tolerate cholecystectomy.[127] However, when pancreatitis caused by gallstones ismild and self limited, the issue becomes preventing recurrent episodes of biliary symptoms,including acute pancreatitis. Currently, the majority of surgeons advocate and performcholecystectomy urgently, when symptoms have subsided and laboratory values havenormalized, usually during the same hospital admission[96, 126-133], while others delaycholecystectomy for weeks; decision making algorithms regarding approaches to pre- versusintraoperative common bile duct evaluation and clearance are even more provider dependent,though patients with mild pancreatitis generally do not benefit from preoperative ERCP.[126, 134] Arecent meta-analysis[39] showed no difference in morbidity and mortality when endoscopicremoval of common bile duct stones with cholecystectomy was compared to cholecystectomywith intraoperative removal of common bile duct stones; the authors went on to state thattreatment should be determined by local resources and expertise.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the preferred approach for removing thesource of stones in cases acute pancreatitis due to gallstones. (Level II, Grade B).
Severe pancreatitis with ongoing multi system organ failure requires immediate clearingof any biliary obstruction followed by supportive care until the patient recoverssufficiently to tolerate cholecystectomy. (Level I, Grade A).
When pancreatitis caused by gallstones is mild and self limited, urgent cholecystectomyshould be performed after symptoms have subsided and laboratory values havenormalized, usually during the same hospital admission. (Level II, Grade B).
D. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the setting of pregnancy. Please see the published SAGESguidelines and associated review article regarding diagnosis and laparoscopic treatment of SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
surgical diseases during pregnancy.[135] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the setting of pregnancy:
Please see the published SAGES guidelines and associated review article regardingdiagnosis and laparoscopic treatment of surgical diseases during pregnancy.[135] E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in the setting of cirrhosis. Cirrhosis places patients atan increased risk for gallstone formation[136-138] Since the NIH consensus conference ongallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1992 suggested patients with cirrhosis were"not usually candidates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy"[1] studies continue to be publishedsupporting the safety of the approach in patients with Child's A or B cirrhosis (includingdowngrading from C after appropriate treatment)[39] with almost no data using the MELD scoreto compare patients[139]; though there is little published data for Child's C patients, what isavailable suggests it should be avoided in favor of non-operative approaches such apercutaneous cholecystostomy.[140] Recent studies generally agree laparoscopiccholecystectomy in selected cirrhotics has a relatively low conversion rate (0- 11%),complication rate (9.5-21%), and risk of dying (0-6.3%), with most showing worsening liverfailure, including the presence of ascites and coagulopathy, predicting poorer outcomes[139-144];a recent prospective randomized trial found laparoscopic cholecystectomy was safer than opencholecystectomy in cirrhotics.[145] Some authors have suggested laparoscopic subtotalcholecystectomy as an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.[146, 147] Most authors cautionthat bleeding is the most frequent and worrisome complication suggesting that coagulopathyand thrombocytopenia be corrected preoperatively, and that dilated pericholecystic andabdominal wall veins or recanalized umbilical veins be treated with care, with one author noting"conversion to open does not correct coagulopathy".[142, 143] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in the setting of cirrhosis:
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is relatively safe in patients with Child's A or B cirrhosis.
(Level I, Grade B).
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not recommended for Child's C patients. (Level III,Grade C).
Bleeding is the most frequent complication; coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia shouldbe corrected preoperatively, and dilated pericholecystic and abdominal wall veins orrecanalized umbilical veins be treated with care. (Level II, Grade A).
F. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the setting of systemic anticoagulation. There is littlepublished data regarding laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the setting of systemicanticoagulation, but there are at least two recently published studies of patients taking warfarinfor long term systemic anticoagulation.[148, 149] In both, patients had their warfarin discontinuedand were bridged to surgery with low molecular weight heparin as inpatients, and laparoscopiccholecystectomy was performed after their INR was 1.5 or less. In one study of 44anticoagulated patients, postoperative bleeding was significantly more common in the oralanticoagulation group (25%) versus the control group (1.5%), and in the majority of cases, SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
bleeding in the oral anticoagulation group was serious, requiring blood transfusion orreoperation with a concomitantly longer hospital stay with standard laboratory tests notpredicting postoperative hemorrhage,[148] while the other study with 33 anticoagulated patientsreported no bleeding complications.[149] Based on similar rates of bleeding from other studies oflaparoscopic procedures reviewed by the authors, caution in chronically anticoagulated patientsis warranted, particularly in those requiring bridging with low molecular weight heparin.[148] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the setting of systemic anticoagulation:
Caution in chronically anticoagulated patients is warranted even after cessation ofpharmacotherapy, particularly in those bridged with low molecular weight heparin. (LevelIII, Grade B).
G. Porcelain gallbladder. The relationship between calcification of the gallbladder wall andgallbladder cancer has been oft-repeated; however there is relatively little published dataregarding the relationship between the two with almost no published data from this decade. Oneof the most recent available studies from 2000[150] reviewed pathological findings from 25,900cholecsytetomies over 27 years; there were 150 gallbladders with cancer and 44 with calcifiedwalls, 17 with complete intramural calcification (the classic porcelain gallbladder) and 27 withselective mucosal calcification. None of the specimens with complete intramural calcificationhad concomitant associated cancer while only 2 of the 27 with selective mucosal calcificationhad associated cancer correlating with a 5% incidence in calcified gallbladders (0% in trueporcelain gallbladders). There is one study from 2004 addressing calcified gallbladders inlaparoscopic cholecystectomy[151] with 13 of 1,608 laparoscopic cholecystectomy specimenshaving calcified walls, again noting no cancer in 10 gallbladders with complete intramuralcalcification while 1 of 3 specimens with selective mucosal calcifications had associated cancer,which suggests patients with suspected calcifications should be carefully studied, with opencholecystectomy recommended for those with selective mucosal calcifications.
Patients with suspected gallbladder calcifications should be carefully studied, with opencholecystectomy recommended for those with selective mucosal calcifications. (Level III,Grade B).
H. Gallbladder polyps. Polyploid lesions of the gallbladder, which can be found in about 1-5% ofadults on ultrasound in Western populations [152, 153] and 9.6% in Asian populations[154], aredefined as elevations of the gallbladder mucosa. Polyploid lesions of the gallbladder can be truepolyps which demonstrate neoplastic changes and may be benign, dysplastic or malignant, orcan be pseudopolyps such as cholesterol polyps, inflammatory polyps, or adenomyoma whichare all benign.[152, 155] Gallbladder polyps are most frequently cholesterol polyps, which areusually small (less than 1cm) and multiple, and tend to remain stable with regard to size andnumber. Patients with cholesterol polyps usually do not develops concomitant stones orsymptoms.[156] A recent comparison of preoperative ultrasound findings with pathologicalexamination of cholecystectomy specimens in Western patients suggests size is the only SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
reliable indicator for malignant potential with all malignancies found in polyps greater than6mm[152] though non-Western populations may develop malignancies in smaller polyps.[155]There are no randomized studies to direct decisions regarding gallbladder polyps[157] anddespite recent studies, the management of gallbladder polyps remains controversial. Areasonable approach would include laparoscopic cholecystectomy for larger, especially single,polyps or those with associated symptoms with watchful waiting for small ( Laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be considered for larger, especially single, polypsor those with associated symptoms, with watchful waiting for small ( I. Gallbladder cancer. The incidence of gallbladder cancer in the US is 1.2/100,000; the onlycurative therapy is surgical resection, and except for those with early stage disease, survival isextremely poor. Gallbladder cancer is found unexpectedly upon pathological examination in lessthan 1% specimens after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.[158, 159] Laparoscopic cholecystectomyis considered curative for cancers confined to the gallbladder mucosa (T1a), while cancerswhich invade the muscularis (T1b) may have lymph node metastases or lymphatic invasionwhich prompts some authors to recommend hepatoduodenal lymph node dissection for theselesions, but an initial open versus laparoscopic approach does not influence survival.[160-163]Inadvertent opening of cancerous gallbladders during laparoscopic cholecystectomy increasesthe likelihood of recurrence and port site metastases.[164-166] Cancers which are more locallyadvanced or those with nodal involvement should be referred to specialty centers forconsideration of more extensive resection or re-resection.[159] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered curative for cancers confined to thegallbladder mucosa (T1a). (Level II, Grade B).
Cancers which are more locally advanced or those with nodal involvement should bereferred to specialty centers for consideration of more extensive resection or re-resection. (Level II, Grade B).
IX. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A. Length of stay. Patients undergoing uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy forsymptomatic cholelithiasis may be discharged home on the day of surgery.[167] Control ofpostoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting are important to successful same day discharge,[168]and admission rates despite planned same day discharge are reported to be 1-39%; patientsolder than age 50 may be at increased risk for admission.[168-174] Readmission rates range from0-8%; common causes for readmission after same day discharge include pain, intabdominalfluid collections, bile leaks, and bile duct stones.[167, 170] Time to discharge after surgery forpatients with acute cholecystitis, bile duct stones, or in patients converted to an open procedureshould be determined on an individual basis.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
Length of stay:
Patients undergoing uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomaticcholelithiasis may be discharged home on the day of surgery; control of postoperativepain, nausea, and vomiting are important to successful same day discharge. (Level II,Grade B)Patients older than age 50 may be at increased risk for admission. (Level II, Grade B).
Time to discharge after surgery for patients with acute cholecystitis, bile duct stones, orin patients converted to an open procedure should be determined on an individual basis.
(Level III, Grade A).
X. REDUCED PORT AND SINGLE INCISION LAPAROSCOPIC
CHOLECYSTECTOMY

All parts of the SAGES GUIDELINES FOR THE CLINICAL APPLICATION OF
LAPAROSCOPIC BILIARY TRACT SURGERY
apply to reduced port and single incision
approaches to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The indications, contra-indications and
preoperative preparation for reduced port and single incision approaches are the same as those
for multi port cholecystectomy. Access and equipment, are, in their essentials, the same for
reduced port and single incision approaches and multiport procedures. Access to the abdominal
cavity in reduced port and single incision approaches should follow accepted standards for safe
entry including avoidance and recognition of complications. Standard instruments may be used
in single incision or multi port procedures. With respect to specialized access devices and non-
rigid instruments, there have been no trials or adequate evaluative studies yet published to offer
any recommendation for these devices. Introduction of new instruments, access devices or new
techniques should be done with caution and/or under study protocol, and, prior to the addition of
any new instrument or device, it should, to the extent possible, be proven safe, and not limit
adherence to established guidelines for safe performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Adequate training should be obtained on any new device or instrument prior to utilization in a
patient. As with any new technique, of outcomes should be continuously assessed to ensure
continued patient safety as single incision techniques are developed; to date, only studies with
limited numbers of patients have been reported.[175-177] Dissection performed during single
incision procedures should follow "best practice" approaches recommended for multiport
cholecystectomy including dynamic traction of the fundus of the gallbladder, dynamic lateral
retraction of the gallbladder infundibulum, and identification and maintenance of the "critical
view" of the cystic duct and artery to avoid inadvertent injury to the common bile duct or hepatic
arteries. During initial procedures, a low threshold for using additional port sites should be
maintained so as to not jeopardize a safe dissection and result.
Single incision cholecystectomy:
The indications, contra-indications and preoperative preparation for reduced port andsingle incision approaches are the same as those for multi port cholecystectomy. (LevelIII, Grade A).
Access to the abdominal cavity in reduced port and single incision approaches should SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
follow accepted standards for safe entry including avoidance and recognition ofcomplications. (Level III, Grade A).
Introduction of new instruments, access devices or new techniques should be done withcaution and/or under study protocol, and, prior to the addition of any new instrument ordevice, it should, to the extent possible, be proven safe, and not limit adherence toestablished guidelines for safe performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. (Level III,Grade A).
During initial procedures, a low threshold for using additional port sites should bemaintained so as to not jeopardize a safe dissection and result. (Level III, Grade A).
APPENDIX A: Levels of Evidence
Evidence from properly conducted randomized,controlled trials Evidence from controlled trials withoutrandomizationOrCohort or case-controlstudiesOrMultiple time series, dramaticuncontrolled experiments Descriptive case series, opinions of expertpanels APPENDIX B: Scale Used for Recommendation Grading
Based on high-level (level I or II), well-performed studies with uniform interpretationand conclusions by the expert panel Based on high-level, well-performed studieswith varying interpretation and conclusions bythe expert panel Based on lower level evidence (level II or less)with inconsistent findings and/or varyinginterpretations or conclusions by the expertpanel APPENDIX C: Literature Review Method, Search terms and results
I. LITERATURE REVIEW METHOD
Systematic literature searches for each topic were performed on MEDLINE during the course ofthe review. In general, the search strategy was limited articles to those in English, on humans,and published within the last 5 years. The abstracts were reviewed by the two committeemembers (DO, KA). Randomized controlled trials, metaanalyses, and systematic reviews wereselected for further review along with prospective and retrospective studies including studieswith smaller samples, which were considered when additional evidence was lacking.
II. SEARCH TERMS AND RESULTS
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
1. Indications.
1. Search date: September, 2009.
2. Search terms: "chlolecystectomy indications".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 91 articles, abstracts reviewed, 6 chosen as pertinent, one additional earlier landmark publication included.
2. Antibiotic prophylaxis.
1. Search date: July, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy prophylaxis antibiotics".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 13 articles, abstracts reviewed, 4 chosen as pertinent.
3. Abdominal access. See "Access injuries" below4. Safe technique.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy bile duct injury prevention".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 33 articles, abstracts reviewed, 8 chosen as pertinent.
5. Intraoperative cholangiography.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "intraoperative cholangiogram choledocholithiasis".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 69 articles, abstracts reviewed, 12 chosen as pertinent.
6. Intraoperative ultrasound.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy intraoperative ultrasound".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 59 articles, abstracts reviewed, 4 chosen as pertinent.
7. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration, ERCP with stone extraction and altered anatomy.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic bile duct exploration".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 101 articles, abstracts reviewed, 15 chosen as pertinent.
8. Laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic endobiliary stent".
3. Limits: None4. Results: 14 articles, abstracts reviewed, 4 chosen as pertinent.
9. Dissection of the gallbladder from the liver bed.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy dissection".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 83 articles, abstracts reviewed, 5 chosen as pertinent.
10. Use of drains.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy drains".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
4. Results: 9 articles, abstracts reviewed, 2 chosen as pertinent.
11. Conversion to laparotomy.
1. Search date: February, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion to laparotomy".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 33 articles, abstracts reviewed, 7 chosen as pertinent.
12. Access injuries.
1. Search date: August, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic access complication".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 90 articles, abstracts reviewed, 4 chosen as pertinent.
13. Common bile duct injuries.
1. Search date: February, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy bile duct injury".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Additional hand searching of bibliographies5. Results: 194 articles, abstracts reviewed, 19 chosen as pertinent.
14. Biliary dyskinesia.
1. Search date: September, 2009.
2. Search terms: "cholecystectomy biliary dyskinesia".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Additional hand searching of bibliographies5. Results: 40 articles, abstracts reviewed, 6 chosen as pertinent.
15. Acute cholecystitis.
1. Search date: March, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy acute cholecystitis".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 219 articles, abstracts reviewed, 38 chosen as pertinent.
16. Gallstone pancreatitis.
1. Search date: April, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy acute pancreatitis".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 77 articles, abstracts reviewed, 13 chosen as pertinent.
17. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in the setting of cirrhosis.
1. Search date: April, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy cirrhosis".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Additional hand searching of bibliographies5. Results: 69 articles, abstracts reviewed, 13 chosen as pertinent.
18. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in the setting of systemic anticoagulation 1. Search date: April, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy acute pancreatitis".
3. Limits: None.
4. Additional hand searching of bibliographies5. Results: 11 articles, abstracts reviewed, 2 chosen as pertinent.
19. Porcelain gallbladder.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
1. Search date: April, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy porcelain gallbladder".
3. Limits: None.
4. Additional hand searching of bibliographies5. Results: 16 articles, abstracts reviewed, 2 chosen as pertinent.
20. Gallbladder polyps.
1. Search date: April, 2009.
2. Search terms: "gallbladder polyps".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 59 articles, abstracts reviewed, 6 chosen as pertinent.
21. Gallbladder cancer.
1. Search date: June, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy gallbladder cancer".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 108 articles, abstracts reviewed, 9 chosen as pertinent.
22. Length of stay.
1. Search date: July, 2009.
2. Search terms: "laparoscopic cholecystectomy hospital discharge".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 58 articles, abstracts reviewed, 8 chosen as pertinent.
23. Single incision cholecystectomy.
1. Search date: September, 2009.
2. Search terms: "single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy".
3. Limits: English language, humans, and published within the last 5 years.
4. Results: 15 articles, abstracts reviewed, 3 chosen as representative.
1. NIH releases consensus statement on gallstones, bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Fam Physician 1992;46:1571-4.
2. Patel JA, Patel NA, Piper GL, Smith DE, 3rd, Malhotra G, Colella JJ. Perioperative management of cholelithiasis in patients presenting for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastricbypass: have we reached a consensus? Am Surg 2009;75:470-6; discussion 6.
3. Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Fusai G, Davidson BR. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for biliary colic. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD007196.
4. Halldestam I, Kullman E, Borch K. Defined indications for elective cholecystectomy for gallstone disease. Br J Surg 2008;95:620-6.
5. Gourgiotis S, Dimopoulos N, Germanos S, Vougas V, Alfaras P, Hadjiyannakis E.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a safe approach for management of acute cholecystitis.
JSLS 2007;11:219-24.
6. Curro G, Baccarani U, Adani G, Cucinotta E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with mild cirrhosis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Transplant Proc 2007;39:1471-3.
7. Heinrich S, Schafer M, Rousson V, Clavien PA. Evidence-based treatment of acute pancreatitis: a look at established paradigms. Ann Surg 2006;243:154-68.
8. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Puli SR, Othman MO, Roy PK. Role of prophylactic SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg2008;12:1847-53; discussion 53.
9. Chang WT, Lee KT, Chuang SC, et al. The impact of prophylactic antibiotics on postoperative infection complication in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: aprospective randomized study. Am J Surg 2006;191:721-5.
10. Dervisoglou A, Tsiodras S, Kanellakopoulou K, et al. The value of chemoprophylaxis against Enterococcus species in elective cholecystectomy: a randomized study ofcefuroxime vs ampicillin-sulbactam. Arch Surg 2006;141:1162-7.
11. Steinberg JP, Braun BI, Hellinger WC, et al. Timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infections: results from the Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial ProphylaxisErrors. Ann Surg 2009;250:10-6.
12. Guidelines for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis during laparoscopic surgery. Surg 13. Scott-Conner CEH, ed. The SAGES manual: fundamentals of laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, and GI endoscopy. 2 ed: Birkhäuser; 2005.
14. Ahmad G, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD006583.
15. Larobina M, Nottle P. Complete evidence regarding major vascular injuries during laparoscopic access. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2005;15:119-23.
16. Dekker SW, Hugh TB. Laparoscopic bile duct injury: understanding the psychology and heuristics of the error. ANZ J Surg 2008;78:1109-14.
17. Kholdebarin R, Boetto J, Harnish JL, Urbach DR. Risk factors for bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-control study. Surg Innov 2008;15:114-9.
18. Singh K, Ohri A. Anatomic landmarks: their usefulness in safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1754-8.
19. Yegiyants S, Collins JC. Operative strategy can reduce the incidence of major bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 2008;74:985-7.
20. Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z, Baltatzi L, Dervenis C. One Thousand Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies in a Single Surgical Unit Using the "Critical View ofSafety" Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2008.
21. Debru E, Dawson A, Leibman S, et al. Does routine intraoperative cholangiography prevent bile duct transection? Surg Endosc 2005;19:589-93.
22. Waage A, Nilsson M. Iatrogenic bile duct injury: a population-based study of 152 776 cholecystectomies in the Swedish Inpatient Registry. Arch Surg 2006;141:1207-13.
23. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I, et al. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of an Italian national survey on 56 591 cholecystectomies. ArchSurg 2005;140:986-92.
24. Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, et al. Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychologyperspective. Ann Surg 2003;237:460-9.
25. Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, Sarnari J, et al. Thirteen years' experience with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for stones. Effectiveness and long-term results.
Surg Endosc 2007;21:34-40.
26. Hamouda AH, Goh W, Mahmud S, Khan M, Nassar AH. Intraoperative cholangiography facilitates simple transcystic clearance of ductal stones in units without expertise forlaparoscopic bile duct surgery. Surg Endosc 2007;21:955-9.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
27. Wenner DE, Whitwam P, Turner D, Chadha A, Degani J. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and management of biliary tract stones in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center.
JSLS 2006;10:47-51.
28. Lacitignola S, Minardi M. Management of common bile duct stones: a ten-year experience at a tertiary care center. JSLS 2008;12:62-5.
29. Bertolin-Bernades R, Sabater-Orti L, Calvete-Chornet J, et al. Mild acute biliary pancreatitis vs cholelithiasis: are there differences in the rate of choledocholithiasis? JGastrointest Surg 2007;11:875-9.
30. Metcalfe MS, Ong T, Bruening MH, Iswariah H, Wemyss-Holden SA, Maddern GJ. Is laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiogram a matter of routine? Am J Surg2004;187:475-81.
31. Tinoco R, Tinoco A, El-Kadre L, Peres L, Sueth D. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg 2008;247:674-9.
32. Topal B, Fieuws S, Tomczyk K, et al. Clinical models are inaccurate in predicting bile duct stones in situ for patients with gallbladder. Surg Endosc 2009;23:38-44.
33. Perry KA, Myers JA, Deziel DJ. Laparoscopic ultrasound as the primary method for bile duct imaging during cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2008;22:208-13.
34. Machi J, Oishi AJ, Tajiri T, Murayama KM, Furumoto NL, Oishi RH. Routine laparoscopic ultrasound can significantly reduce the need for selective intraoperativecholangiography during cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2007;21:270-4.
35. 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.
36. Hakamada K, Narumi S, Toyoki Y, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound as an educational guide for laparoscopic biliary surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:2370-6.
37. Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:CD003327.
38. Kharbutli B, Velanovich V. Management of preoperatively suspected choledocholithiasis: a decision analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1973-80.
39. Clayton ES, Connor S, Alexakis N, Leandros E. Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. BrJ Surg 2006;93:1185-91.
40. Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, Parks R, Martin D, Lombard M. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008;57:1004-21.
41. Bingener J, Schwesinger WH. Management of common bile duct stones in a rural area of the United States: results of a survey. Surg Endosc 2006;20:577-9.
42. Schroeppel TJ, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA, Kothari SN. An economic analysis of hospital charges for choledocholithiasis by different treatment strategies. Am Surg2007;73:472-7.
43. Poulose BK, Speroff T, Holzman MD. Optimizing choledocholithiasis management: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Surg 2007;142:43-8; discussion 9.
44. Poulose BK, Arbogast PG, Holzman MD. National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc2006;20:186-90.
45. Topal B, Aerts R, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic common bile duct stone clearance with flexible choledochoscopy. Surg Endosc 2007;21:2317-21.
46. Tang CN, Tsui KK, Ha JP, Siu WT, Li MK. Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
duct: 10-year experience of 174 patients from a single centre. Hong Kong Med J2006;12:191-6.
47. Stromberg C, Nilsson M, Leijonmarck CE. Stone clearance and risk factors for failure in laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the common bile duct. Surg Endosc2008;22:1194-9.
48. Campbell-Lloyd AJ, Martin DJ, Martin IJ. Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a 5-year follow up of 150 consecutive patients. ANZ J Surg2008;78:492-4.
49. Taylor CJ, Kong J, Ghusn M, White S, Crampton N, Layani L. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration: results of 160 consecutive cases with 2-year follow up. ANZ J Surg2007;77:440-5.
50. Alhamdani A, Mahmud S, Jameel M, Baker A. Primary closure of choledochotomy after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2190-5.
51. Kanamaru T, Sakata K, Nakamura Y, Yamamoto M, Ueno N, Takeyama Y.
Laparoscopic choledochotomy in management of choledocholithiasis. Surg LaparoscEndosc Percutan Tech 2007;17:262-6.
52. Karaliotas C, Sgourakis G, Goumas C, Papaioannou N, Lilis C, Leandros E.
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic stone extraction.
Surg Endosc 2008;22:1826-31.
53. Jameel M, Darmas B, Baker AL. Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008;90:29-35.
54. O'Neill CJ, Gillies DM, Gani JS. Choledocholithiasis: overdiagnosed endoscopically and undertreated laparoscopically. ANZ J Surg 2008;78:487-91.
55. Gersin KS, Fanelli RD. Laparoscopic endobiliary stenting as an adjunct to common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 1998;12:301-4.
56. Fanelli RD, Gersin KS. Laparoscopic endobiliary stenting: a simplified approach to the management of occult common bile duct stones. J Gastrointest Surg 2001;5:74-80.
57. Fanelli RD, Gersin KS, Mainella MT. Laparoscopic endobiliary stenting significantly improves success of postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography inlow-volume centers. Surg Endosc 2002;16:487-91.
58. Costi R, Mazzeo A, Tartamella F, Manceau C, Vacher B, Valverde A.
Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a case-control study comparing the short- and long-termoutcomes for a "laparoscopy-first" attitude with the outcome for sequential treatment(systematic endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy).
Surg Endosc 2009.
59. Ahmed AR, Husain S, Saad N, Patel NC, Waldman DL, O'Malley W. Accessing the common bile duct after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007;3:640-3.
60. Neri V, Ambrosi A, Fersini A, Tartaglia N, Valentino TP. Antegrade dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2007;11:225-8.
61. Cengiz Y, Janes A, Grehn A, Israelsson LA. Randomized trial of traditional dissection with electrocautery versus ultrasonic fundus-first dissection in patients undergoinglaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2005;92:810-3.
62. Fullum TM, Kim S, Dan D, Turner PL. Laparoscopic "Dome-down" cholecystectomy with the LCS-5 Harmonic scalpel. JSLS 2005;9:51-7.
63. Bessa SS, Al-Fayoumi TA, Katri KM, Awad AT. Clipless laparoscopic cholecystectomy by ultrasonic dissection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008;18:593-8.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
64. Caliskan K, Nursal TZ, Yildirim S, et al. Hydrodissection with adrenaline-lidocaine-saline solution in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006;391:359-63.
65. Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Mullerat P, Davidson BR. Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007:CD006004.
66. Tzovaras G, Liakou P, Fafoulakis F, Baloyiannis I, Zacharoulis D, Hatzitheofilou C. Is there a role for drain use in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A controlledrandomized trial. Am J Surg 2009;197:759-63.
67. Zhang WJ, Li JM, Wu GZ, Luo KL, Dong ZT. Risk factors affecting conversion in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. ANZ J Surg 2008;78:973-6.
68. Del Rio P, Dell'Abate P, Soliani P, Sivelli R, Sianesi M. Videolaparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: analyzing conversion risk factors. JLaparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2006;16:105-7.
69. Kauvar DS, Brown BD, Braswell AW, Harnisch M. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: increased operative complications and conversions to laparotomy. JLaparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005;15:379-82.
70. Nachnani J, Supe A. Pre-operative prediction of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy using clinical and ultrasonographic parameters. Indian J Gastroenterol 2005;24:16-8.
71. Simopoulos C, Botaitis S, Polychronidis A, Tripsianis G, Karayiannakis AJ. Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc2005;19:905-9.
72. Visser BC, Parks RW, Garden OJ. Open cholecystectomy in the laparoendoscopic era.
Am J Surg 2008;195:108-14.
73. Al Salamah SM. Outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2005;15:400-3.
74. Fuller J, Ashar BS, Carey-Corrado J. Trocar-associated injuries and fatalities: an analysis of 1399 reports to the FDA. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:302-7.
75. Shamiyeh A, Wayand W. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: early and late complications and their treatment. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004;389:164-71.
76. Tantia O, Jain M, Khanna S, Sen B. Iatrogenic biliary injury: 13,305 cholecystectomies experienced by a single surgical team over more than 13 years. Surg Endosc2008;22:1077-86.
77. Karvonen J, Gullichsen R, Laine S, Salminen P, Gronroos JM. Bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: primary and long-term results from a single institution.
Surg Endosc 2007;21:1069-73.
78. Diamantis T, Tsigris C, Kiriakopoulos A, et al. Bile duct injuries associated with laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy: an 11-year experience in one institute. SurgToday 2005;35:841-5.
79. Gurusamy KS, Samraj K. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:CD005440.
80. Soderlund C, Frozanpor F, Linder S. Bile duct injuries at laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-institution prospective study. Acute cholecystitis indicates an increased risk.
World J Surg 2005;29:987-93.
81. Li J, Frilling A, Nadalin S, Paul A, Malago M, Broelsch CE. Management of concomitant hepatic artery injury in patients with iatrogenic major bile duct injury after laparoscopiccholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2008;95:460-5.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
82. Stewart L, Robinson TN, Lee CM, Liu K, Whang K, Way LW. Right hepatic artery injury associated with laparoscopic bile duct injury: incidence, mechanism, and consequences.
J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:523-30; discussion 30-1.
83. Bektas H, Schrem H, Winny M, Klempnauer J. Surgical treatment and outcome of iatrogenic bile duct lesions after cholecystectomy and the impact of different clinicalclassification systems. Br J Surg 2007;94:1119-27.
84. Schmidt SC, Langrehr JM, Hintze RE, Neuhaus P. Long-term results and risk factors influencing outcome of major bile duct injuries following cholecystectomy. Br J Surg2005;92:76-82.
85. Sicklick JK, Camp MS, Lillemoe KD, et al. Surgical management of bile duct injuries sustained during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: perioperative results in 200 patients.
Ann Surg 2005;241:786-92; discussion 93-5.
86. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I, et al. Advantages of multidisciplinary management of bile duct injuries occurring during cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 2008;195:763-9.
87. Sabbaghian MS, Rich BS, Rothberger GD, et al. Evaluation of surgical outcomes and gallbladder characteristics in patients with biliary dyskinesia. J Gastrointest Surg2008;12:1324-30.
88. Bingener J, Richards ML, Schwesinger WH, Sirinek KR. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for biliary dyskinesia: correlation of preoperative cholecystokinin cholescintigraphyresults with postoperative outcome. Surg Endosc 2004;18:802-6.
89. Geiger TM, Awad ZT, Burgard M, et al. Prognostic indicators of quality of life after cholecystectomy for biliary dyskinesia. Am Surg 2008;74:400-4.
90. Paajanen H, Miilunpohja S, Joukainen S, Heikkinen J. Role of quantitative cholescintigraphy for planning laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladderdyskinesia and chronic abdominal pain. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2009;19:16-9.
91. Ponsky TA, DeSagun R, Brody F. Surgical therapy for biliary dyskinesia: a meta- analysis and review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005;15:439-42.
92. Gurusamy KS, Junnarkar S, Farouk M, Davidson BR. Cholecystectomy for suspected gallbladder dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007086.
93. Ainsworth AP, Adamsen S, Rosenberg J. Surgery for acute cholecystitis in Denmark.
Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:648-51.
94. Yamashita Y, Takada T, Hirata K. A survey of the timing and approach to the surgical management of patients with acute cholecystitis in Japanese hospitals. J HepatobiliaryPancreat Surg 2006;13:409-15.
95. Csikesz NG, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Trends in surgical management for acute cholecystitis.
96. Campbell EJ, Montgomery DA, Mackay CJ. A national survey of current surgical treatment of acute gallstone disease. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2008;18:242-7.
97. Campbell EJ, Montgomery DA, MacKay CJ. A survey of current surgical treatment of acute gallstone disease in the west of Scotland. Scott Med J 2007;52:15-9.
98. Siddiqui T, MacDonald A, Chong PS, Jenkins JT. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. AmJ Surg 2008;195:40-7.
99. Yamashita Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Surgical treatment of patients with acute SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14:91-7.
100. Lam CM, Yuen AW, Chik B, Wai AC, Fan ST. Variation in the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a population-based study. Arch Surg2005;140:1084-8.
101. Shikata S, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Today2005;35:553-60.
102. Soffer D, Blackbourne LH, Schulman CI, et al. Is there an optimal time for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis? Surg Endosc 2007;21:805-9.
103. Stevens KA, Chi A, Lucas LC, Porter JM, Williams MD. Immediate laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: no need to wait. Am J Surg 2006;192:756-61.
104. Tzovaras G, Zacharoulis D, Liakou P, Theodoropoulos T, Paroutoglou G, Hatzitheofilou C. Timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective nonrandomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:5528-31.
105. Chau CH, Siu WT, Tang CN, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: the evolving trend in an institution. Asian J Surg 2006;29:120-4.
106. Wang YC, Yang HR, Chung PK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ. Urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of acute cholecystitis: timing does not influenceconversion rate. Surg Endosc 2006;20:806-8.
107. Kolla SB, Aggarwal S, Kumar A, et al. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc2004;18:1323-7.
108. Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L, Stiernstam M, Westman B, Lundell L. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acutecholecystitis. Br J Surg 2005;92:44-9.
109. Hadad SM, Vaidya JS, Baker L, Koh HC, Heron TP, Thompson AM. Delay from symptom onset increases the conversion rate in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acutecholecystitis. World J Surg 2007;31:1298-01; discussion 302-3.
110. Lee AY, Carter JJ, Hochberg MS, Stone AM, Cohen SL, Pachter HL. The timing of surgery for cholecystitis: a review of 202 consecutive patients at a large municipalhospital. Am J Surg 2008;195:467-70.
111. Casillas RA, Yegiyants S, Collins JC. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred management of acute cholecystitis. Arch Surg 2008;143:533-7.
112. Daniak CN, Peretz D, Fine JM, Wang Y, Meinke AK, Hale WB. Factors associated with time to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. World J Gastroenterol2008;14:1084-90.
113. Lau H, Lo CY, Patil NG, Yuen WK. Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 2006;20:82-7.
114. Asoglu O, Ozmen V, Karanlik H, et al. Does the complication rate increase in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A2004;14:81-6.
115. Macri A, Scuderi G, Saladino E, et al. Acute gallstone cholecystitis in the elderly: treatment with emergency ultrasonographic percutaneous cholecystostomy and intervallaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2006;20:88-91.
116. Leveau P, Andersson E, Carlgren I, Willner J, Andersson R. Percutaneous cholecystostomy: a bridge to surgery or definite management of acute cholecystitis in SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
high-risk patients? Scand J Gastroenterol 2008;43:593-6.
117. Akyurek N, Salman B, Yuksel O, et al. Management of acute calculous cholecystitis in high-risk patients: percutaneous cholecystotomy followed by early laparoscopiccholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2005;15:315-20.
118. Welschbillig-Meunier K, Pessaux P, Lebigot J, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1256-9.
119. Teoh WM, Cade RJ, Banting SW, Mackay S, Hassen AS. Percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of acute cholecystitis. ANZ J Surg 2005;75:396-8.
120. Li JC, Lee DW, Lai CW, Li AC, Chu DW, Chan AC. Percutaneous cholecystostomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in the critically ill and elderly. Hong Kong Med J2004;10:389-93.
121. Tsumura H, Ichikawa T, Hiyama E, et al. An evaluation of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after selective percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis.
Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:839-44.
122. Kirshtein B, Bayme M, Bolotin A, Mizrahi S, Lantsberg L. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly: is it safe? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2008;18:334-9.
123. do Amaral PC, Azaro Filho Ede M, Galvao TD, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients. JSLS 2006;10:479-83.
124. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Sullivan T. The changing character of acute pancreatitis: epidemiology, etiology, and prognosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2009;11:97-103.
125. Frey CF, Zhou H, Harvey DJ, White RH. The incidence and case-fatality rates of acute biliary, alcoholic, and idiopathic pancreatitis in California, 1994-2001. Pancreas2006;33:336-44.
126. Kimura Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: treatment of gallstone-induced acute pancreatitis. J Hepatobiliary PancreatSurg 2006;13:56-60.
127. UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54 Suppl 3:iii1-9.
128. Nebiker CA, Frey DM, Hamel CT, Oertli D, Kettelhack C. Early versus delayed cholecystectomy in patients with biliary acute pancreatitis. Surgery 2009;145:260-4.
129. Sinha R. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute biliary pancreatitis: the optimal choice? HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:332-5.
130. Chiang DT, Thompson G. Management of acute gallstone pancreatitis: so the story continues. ANZ J Surg 2008;78:52-4.
131. Singhal T, Balakrishnan S, Grandy-Smith S, Hunt J, Asante M, El-Hasani S. Gallstones: best served hot. JSLS 2006;10:332-5.
132. Taylor E, Wong C. The optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in mild gallstone pancreatitis. Am Surg 2004;70:971-5.
133. Cameron DR, Goodman AJ. Delayed cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis: re- admissions and outcomes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:358-62.
134. Lakatos L, Mester G, Reti G, Nagy A, Lakatos PL. Selection criteria for preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomyand endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones: results of a retrospective, single centerstudy between 1996-2002. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:3495-9.
135. Jackson H, Granger S, Price R, et al. Diagnosis and laparoscopic treatment of surgical diseases during pregnancy: an evidence-based review. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1917-27.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
136. Festi D, Dormi A, Capodicasa S, et al. Incidence of gallstone disease in Italy: results from a multicenter, population-based Italian study (the MICOL project). World JGastroenterol 2008;14:5282-9.
137. Chen CH, Huang MH, Yang JC, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of gallstone disease in an adult population of Taiwan: an epidemiological survey. J Gastroenterol Hepatol2006;21:1737-43.
138. Zhang Y, Liu D, Ma Q, Dang C, Wei W, Chen W. Factors influencing the prevalence of gallstones in liver cirrhosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;21:1455-8.
139. Bingener J, Cox D, Michalek J, Mejia A. Can the MELD score predict perioperative morbidity for patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy? AmSurg 2008;74:156-9.
140. Curro G, Iapichino G, Melita G, Lorenzini C, Cucinotta E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Child-Pugh class C cirrhotic patients. JSLS 2005;9:311-5.
141. Mancero JM, D'Albuquerque LA, Gonzalez AM, Larrea FI, de Oliveira e Silva A.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis: acase-control study. World J Surg 2008;32:267-70.
142. Leandros E, Albanopoulos K, Tsigris C, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients with symptomatic gallstone disease. ANZ J Surg 2008;78:363-5.
143. Schiff J, Misra M, Rendon G, Rothschild J, Schwaitzberg S. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1278-81.
144. Ji W, Li LT, Chen XR, Li JS. Application of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2004;3:270-4.
145. Ji W, Li LT, Wang ZM, Quan ZF, Chen XR, Li JS. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.
World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:2513-7.
146. Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Jani K, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients: the role of subtotal cholecystectomy and its variants. J Am Coll Surg2006;203:145-51.
147. Philips JA, Lawes DA, Cook AJ, et al. The use of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy for complicated cholelithiasis. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1697-700.
148. Ercan M, Bostanci EB, Ozer I, et al. Postoperative hemorrhagic complications after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving long-term anticoagulanttherapy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2009.
149. Leandros E, Gomatos IP, Mami P, Kastellanos E, Albanopoulos K, Konstadoulakis MM.
Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease in patientsreceiving anticoagulant therapy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005;15:357-60.
150. Stephen AE, Berger DL. Carcinoma in the porcelain gallbladder: a relationship revisited.
151. Kwon AH, Inui H, Matsui Y, Uchida Y, Hukui J, Kamiyama Y. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with porcelain gallbladder based on the preoperativeultrasound findings. Hepatogastroenterology 2004;51:950-3.
152. Zielinski MD, Atwell TD, Davis PW, Kendrick ML, Que FG. Comparison of surgically resected polypoid lesions of the gallbladder to their pre-operative ultrasoundcharacteristics. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:19-25.
153. Kratzer W, Haenle MM, Voegtle A, et al. Ultrasonographically detected gallbladder polyps: a reason for concern? A seven-year follow-up study. BMC Gastroenterol SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
154. Lin WR, Lin DY, Tai DI, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for gallbladder polyps detected by ultrasonography among healthy Chinese: analysis of 34 669 cases. JGastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:965-9.
155. Aldouri AQ, Malik HZ, Waytt J, et al. The risk of gallbladder cancer from polyps in a large multiethnic series. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:48-51.
156. Colecchia A, Larocca A, Scaioli E, et al. Natural history of small gallbladder polyps is benign: evidence from a clinical and pathogenetic study. Am J Gastroenterol2009;104:624-9.
157. Gurusamy KS, Abu-Amara M, Farouk M, Davidson BR. Cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyp. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007052.
158. Duffy A, Capanu M, Abou-Alfa GK, et al. Gallbladder cancer (GBC): 10-year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC). J Surg Oncol 2008;98:485-9.
159. Shih SP, Schulick RD, Cameron JL, et al. Gallbladder cancer: the role of laparoscopy and radical resection. Ann Surg 2007;245:893-901.
160. You DD, Lee HG, Paik KY, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW. What is an adequate extent of resection for T1 gallbladder cancers? Ann Surg 2008;247:835-8.
161. Kang CM, Lee WJ, Choi GH, et al. Does "clinical" R0 have validity in the choice of simple cholecystectomy for gallbladder carcinoma? J Gastrointest Surg2007;11:1309-16.
162. Kang CM, Choi GH, Park SH, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy only could be an appropriate treatment for selected clinical R0 gallbladder carcinoma. Surg Endosc2007;21:1582-7.
163. Cucinotta E, Lorenzini C, Melita G, Iapichino G, Curro G. Incidental gall bladder carcinoma: does the surgical approach influence the outcome? ANZ J Surg2005;75:795-8.
164. Kwon AH, Imamura A, Kitade H, Kamiyama Y. Unsuspected gallbladder cancer diagnosed during or after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Oncol 2008;97:241-5.
165. Chan KM, Yeh TS, Jan YY, Chen MF. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for early gallbladder carcinoma: long-term outcome in comparison with conventional opencholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1867-71.
166. Yamamoto H, Hayakawa N, Kitagawa Y, et al. Unsuspected gallbladder carcinoma after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2005;12:391-8.
167. Tenconi SM, Boni L, Colombo EM, Dionigi G, Rovera F, Cassinotti E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as day-surgery procedure: current indications and patients' selection.
Int J Surg 2008;6 Suppl 1:S86-8.
168. Psaila J, Agrawal S, Fountain U, et al. Day-surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy: factors influencing same-day discharge. World J Surg 2008;32:76-81.
169. Chauhan A, Mehrotra M, Bhatia PK, Baj B, Gupta AK. Day care laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a feasibility study in a public health service hospital in a developingcountry. World J Surg 2006;30:1690-5; discussion 6-7.
170. Sherigar JM, Irwin GW, Rathore MA, Khan A, Pillow K, Brown MG. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes. JSLS 2006;10:473-8.
171. Kavanagh T, Hu P, Minogue S. Daycase laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study of post-discharge pain, analgesic and antiemetic requirements. Ir J Med Sci2008;177:111-5.
SAGES
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
http://www.sages.org
172. Kasem A, Paix A, Grandy-Smith S, El-Hasani S. Is laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe and acceptable as a day case procedure? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A2006;16:365-8.
173. Chok KS, Yuen WK, Lau H, Lee F, Fan ST. Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Hong Kong Chinese -- an outcome analysis. Asian J Surg 2004;27:313-6.
174. Bueno Lledo J, Planells Roig M, Arnau Bertomeu C, et al. Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a new gold standard for cholecystectomy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig2006;98:14-24.
175. Hodgett SE, Hernandez JM, Morton CA, Ross SB, Albrink M, Rosemurgy AS.
Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg2009;13:188-92.
176. Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Paraskeva P. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 2009.
177. Ersin S, Firat O, Sozbilen M. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it more than a challenge? Surg Endosc 2009.

Source: http://www.lcgdbzz.org/UpFiles/Mag/2015/07/20157318405.pdf

math.miami.edu

Modeling the Invasion of Community-AcquiredMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus intoHospitals Erica M. C. D'Agata,1 Glenn F. Webb,2 Mary Ann Horn,2,3 Robert C. Moellering, Jr.,1 and Shigui Ruan4 1Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 2Department ofMathematics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee; 3Division of Mathematical Sciences, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia;and 4Department of Mathematics, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida

cerc-congres.com

Journée à thème du Mardi 10 juin 2014 PARIS - ASIEM RÉSUMÉ DES TRAVAUX Sage-femme, profession médicale, inscrite au code de santé publique, nous nous devons d'être à jour de nos droits de prescriptions définis par arrêtés qui évoluent régulièrement. Prescrire, analyser consciencieusement les résultats pour la mère et les nouveau-nés et éventuellement traiter ou orienter vers un médecin, conforte notre place parmi les professionnels de premier recours du système de santé.