You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 124 No. 9, September 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (32)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Selective vs Routine Use of Intraoperative Cholangiography

An Argument

Michael D. Pasquale, MD; Russell J. Nauta, MD

Arch Surg. 1989;124(9):1041-1042.


Abstract

• We reviewed the course of 314 patients who underwent cholecystectomy at a University Hospital in 1985. Two hundred eighty-five patients underwent cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis. Preoperatively elevated liver function test results, history of jaundice or pancreatitis, or operative findings of palpable common bile duct stone or dilated extrahepatic ducts were criteria for indicated cholangiography. Of 142 patients who had cholangiography with negative results, only 31 were indicated by these criteria. In 93 patients not having cholangiography performed, the criteria were met in only 8 patients. Of 38 patients who underwent common bile duct exploration, only 29 had stones. As operative time, morbidity, and cost were demonstrably increased in patients undergoing cholangiography, a selective approach is advocated. The number of unnecessary common bile duct explorations might be cut by almost half, while the incidence of finding clinically unsuspected yet significant common bile duct stones is negligible.

(Arch Surg. 1989;124:1041-1042)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication December 12, 1988.

Presented at the Second World Congress on Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 16, 1988.

Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC 20007 (Dr Nauta).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Routine vs Selective Intraoperative Cholangiography During Cholecystectomy
Talamini
JAMA 2003;289:1691-1692.
FULL TEXT  

Selective Operative Cholangiography: Appropriate Management for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Robinson et al.
Arch Surg 1995;130:625-631.
ABSTRACT  

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Clinical and Financial Analysis of 280 Operations
Stoker et al.
Arch Surg 1992;127:589-595.
ABSTRACT  

Intraoperative Cholangiography Revisited
Pace et al.
Arch Surg 1992;127:448-450.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.