SAGES Clinical Spotlight Review: Intraoperative cholangiography

William W. Hope, MD, Robert Fanelli MD, Danielle S. Walsh MD, Ray Price MD, Dimitrios Stefanidis MD,

William S. Richardson MD, and the SAGES Guidelines Committee

Preamble

The following clinical spotlight review regarding the intraoperative cholangiogram is intended for

physicians who manage and treat gallbladder/biliary pathology and perform laparoscopic

cholecystectomy. It is meant to critically review the technique of intraoperative cholangiography,

alternatives for intraoperative biliary imaging, and the available evidence supporting their safety and

efficacy. Based on the level of evidence, recommendations may or may not be given for their use in

clinical practice.

Disclaimer

Guidelines for clinical practice and spotlight reviews are intended to indicate preferable

approaches to medical problems as established by experts in the field. These recommendations will be

based on existing data or a consensus of expert opinion when little or no data are available. Spotlight

reviews are applicable to all physicians who address the clinical problem(s) without regard to specialty

training or interests, and are intended to convey recommendations based on a focused topic; within the

defined scope of review, they indicate the preferable, but not necessarily the only acceptable

approaches due to the complexity of the healthcare environment. Guidelines and recommendations are

intended to be flexible. Given the wide range of specifics in any health care problem, the surgeon must

always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the

moment of decision.

Guidelines, spotlight reviews, and recommendations are developed under the auspices of the

Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons and its various committees, and approved by

the Board of Governors. Each clinical spotlight review has been systematically researched, reviewed and

revised by the guidelines committee, and, when appropriate, reviewed by an appropriate

multidisciplinary team. The recommendations are therefore considered valid at the time of production

based on the data available.

Literature Review

A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE in August 2014. The search strategy was

limited to adult English language articles and is shown in Figure 1. A second search was performed in

May 2015 and limited to pediatric English language articles.

The literature search identified relevant articles. The abstracts were reviewed by 4 committee

members (WWH, MZ, WO, DW) and divided into the following categories:

(a) Randomized studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews

(b) Prospective studies

(c) Retrospective studies

(d) Case reports

(e) Review articles

Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were selected for further

review along with prospective and retrospective studies when a higher level of evidence was lacking.

Studies with smaller samples were considered when additional evidence was lacking. The most recent

reviews were also included. All case reports, old reviews, and smaller studies were excluded when

higher level evidence was available. Duplicate publications or patient populations were considered only

once. Whenever the available evidence from Level I studies was considered to be adequate, lower

evidence level studies were not considered. Newer relevant articles that were published after the

original literature search date during the drafting of this guideline were also included. According to

these exclusion criteria, 66 adult articles and 37 pediatric articles were selected for review.

The reviewers graded the level of evidence and searched the bibliography of each article for

additional articles that may have been missed during the original search. Additional relevant articles

(n=12) were obtained and included in the review for grading. A total of 115 graded articles relevant to

this guideline were included in this review. To facilitate the review by multiple reviewers, these articles

were divided into the following topics and distributed to the reviewers:

History of cholangiography

Indications for intraoperative cholangiography

Ability of intraoperative cholangiography to reduce bile duct injuries

Techniques of and equipment needed for intraoperative cholangiography and the use of

glucagon

Outcomes related to intraoperative cholangiography

Alternative intraoperative methods for assessment of the biliary tree

The recommendations included in this guideline were devised based on the reviewers’ grading of all

articles.

Levels of Evidence/definitions

Both the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation for each of the

guidelines were assessed according to the GRADE system. This uses a 4-tiered system for denoting the

quality of evidence (very low (+), low (+ +), moderate (+ + +), or high (+ + + +)) and a 2-tiered system for

strength of recommendation (weak, or strong)

Introduction

Statement of Focus

The intent of this Clinical Spotlight Review is to critically review the literature and describe the

technique of intraoperative cholangiography and alternative techniques for intraoperative assessment

of the biliary tract.

History of intraoperative cholangiogram

The history of intraoperative cholangiography (well documented by MacFadyen[1]) goes back to

1918 where Reich is credited with the first report of delineating the anatomy of the biliary tree by using

bismuth and petrolatum to identify a biliary fistula[2]. Further advances came in the 1920’s and 30’s

with Tenney and Patterson [3] who defined a bile duct stricture and fistula in a patient who had

undergone a cholecystectomy and in Ginzburg and Benjamin [4] who injected lipiodol solution into a

biliary fistula to identifying common bile ducts stones.

In 1932, Mirizzi reported on the first series of routing IOC’s using lipiodol during

cholecystectomy[5] and advanced the understanding of biliary surgery by emphasizing the importance

of IOC, delineating the anatomy and function of the Sphincter of Oddi, and the recommendation of

leaving T-tubes after exploration of the common bile duct[1]. Twenty years later, Swenson and Fisher

reported the first application of IOC to four infants suspected of having biliary atresia. While the initial

cholecysto-cholangiogram utilized methylene blue solution injected directly into the gallbladder with a

subsequent search for it in the duodenum and proximal hepatic ducts, they subsequently injected

“Diodrast” and obtained a plain film of the abdomen, confirming the diagnosis of biliary atresia in 3 of

the 4 patients[6].

The initial IOC’s were performed with static films and the procedure required an average of 20-

30 minutes to obtain 3-4 images and often had to be repeated[1]. Improvements in IOC came and

paralleled the improvements in imaging capabilities. In 1957, Lackner and Volkel [7] reported on a

mobile image intensifier followed by Stefanini[8], Grace and Peckar[9], and Whitaker et al. [10]

reporting on the use of this coupled with a television fluoroscopy for IOC. Improvements in cameras

and television monitors allowed for better quality images and a higher definition intraoperative

fluorocholangiography (IOFC) emerged. Berci et al. reported on a series of patients in 1978 where they

used a C-arm mobile intensifier and IOFC obtaining images which have become the current standard for

IOC[11].

What are the indications for IOC ?

The main goals of IOC are to identify bile duct stones, clarify biliary anatomy, and prevent bile

duct injuries [1]. Cholangiography is also a fundamental tool in the evaluation of neonatal jaundice,

distinguishing biliary atresia, biliary hypoplasia, and cholestasis from other causes, and permitting

therapeutic irrigation of inspissated bile from the ductal system. Indications for IOC during laparoscopic

cholecystectomy may include jaundice or a history of jaundice, a history of pancreatitis particularly

related to gallstone pancreatitis, elevated liver function tests, a common bile duct larger than 5-7mm in

diameter, a cystic duct larger than 3mm in diameter, multiple small gallbladder stones, unclear

anatomy, common bile duct stones visualized on preoperative ultrasound, possible bile duct injury or

leak, and a short cystic duct[1, 12].

Does routine performance of IOC prevent common bile duct injuries?

Whether IOC should be performed routinely or selectively remains a matter of debate. The

SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery[13] recommended that

IOC may decrease the risk of bile duct injury when used routinely and can allow access to the biliary tree

for therapeutic intervention (Level II evidence, grade B recommendation). This guideline called for the

development of reliable algorithms to guide surgeons when to perform selective cholangiography[13].

In a more recent guideline from the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) regarding the

prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the authors

commented that the routine use of IOC remained controversial and that routine IOC could not be

recommend based on the available literature[14]. This guideline, however, indicated that IOC allows for

early identification of bile duct injuries as long as they are correctly interpreted [14]. Two recent

systematic reviews have addressed this question.

The first study evaluated eight randomized controlled trials and did not find any benefit of IOC

for the prevention of bile duct injuries[15]. In this study, they commented that the Level 1 evidence was

of moderate to poor quality and that none of the studies were insufficiently powered either alone or in

combination to demonstrate the benefit of IOC [12]. The second systemic review evaluated articles

relating to bile duct injuries and reported a protective effect of IOC on bile duct injuries during

cholecystectomy, however, reviewed evidence that was not Level 1 [16]. A nationwide cohort analysis

of Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy in from 1992-1999 found that the risk of bile duct

injury was increased when IOC was not used after controlling for patient and surgeon experience factors

and suggested that the routine use of IOC may decrease rates of common bile duct injuries[17].

Another study evaluated the value of IOC during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using Texas Medicare

claims data from 2000-2009 and reported no statistically significant association between IOC and

common bile duct injury when confounders were controlled for [18, 19].

Two studies have evaluated the effect of cholangiograms on early detection of bile duct injuries.

Data from the Swedish national registry on gallstone surgery reported a 29% lower rate of common bile

duct injury when IOC was used as well as a 62% reduction in the risk of death [20]. Data from a single

high volume teaching center reported that routine use of IOC during laparoscopic cholecystectomy was

associated with a low incidence of bile duct injuries and that IOC facilitated the detection and repair of

these injuries at the same surgical procedure[21].

In the pediatric literature, there are no randomized, prospective trials to assess the utility of IOC

in preventing bile duct injury. However, the most robust guidance comes from a large retrospective

cohort study in pediatric patients that did not identify a benefit for IOC in preventing bile duct injuries in

this population[19, 22]. Utilizing the California Patient Discharge Database to query for children under

18 who underwent a cholecystectomy, Kelley-Quon, et al identified a cohort of 6931 children. IOC was

performed in 30% of children and the overall incidence of bile duct injury was 0.36%. Notably, the

incidence of injury increased with younger age, and was not lower in centers with higher use of IOC or

higher surgical volumes[19]. There was a trend towards increased likelihood of a bile duct injury in

hospitals with a tendency for routine IOC used (odds ratio 12.92, 99% CI 1.31-127.15). The authors

conclude that independent of surgeons who perform routine IOC, the performance of an IOC in this

population may be a marker of a more difficult procedure of aberrant surgical anatomy, and they

advocate for additional research into the indication for the IOC on those who use it selectively.

Recommendation

Surgeons should use IOC liberally, be familiar with its indications, and become facile with the technique

and interpretation of cholangiogram images. While IOC may decrease the risk of bile duct injury its

routine use remains controversial; further high quality evidence is needed before routine IOC can be

recommended

Quality of evidence: +++, weak

Which is the best technique for IOC?

Several IOC techniques have been described that have evolved over time based on available

technology. No particular technique has been proved to be superior and all techniques have been

reported to give an adequate assessment of the biliary tree. Most experts agree that the critical view of

safety should be obtained first during laparoscopic cholecystectomy when possible before performing

IOC [23].

Two main fluoroscopic based techniques have been proposed to evaluate the biliary tree during

laparoscopic cholecystectomy[1].

Intraoperative cholangiography starts by obtaining the critical view of safety [23] and identifying

anatomy. A clip is placed on the cystic duct/infundibular junction to prevent flow of bile from the

gallbladder or contrast into the gallbladder during IOC. A small incision is then made on the anterior

surface of the cystic duct just below the clip and can be confirmed by the presence of bile. A

cholangioclamp with cholangiocatheter is then inserted either via one of the right subcostal ports or via

a small stab incision is made in the right upper quadrant and a needle or guiding sheath is advanced

percutaneously into the abdomen angling towards the cystic ductotomy. At this time a cholangiogram

catheter of the surgeon’s choice can be advanced into the cystic ductotomy and secured with a clip,

balloon, cystic duct holding device, or umbrella mechanism.

Once the cholangiocather is secured in place, a mobile C-arm fluoroscope is covered with a

sterile drape and positioned over the right upper quadrant of the patient. The bed, which should be

positioned and able to accommodate a C-arm, can be adjusted to have the patient in Trendelenburg

position and slightly to the right which may facilitate placement of the C-arm. Respirations can be held

after discussion with the anesthesiologist to obtain a satisfactory image. Diluted dye is then injected

through the cholangiogram and fluoroscopic images are obtained. Although stressed less than the

actual technique of IOC, correct interpretation of the cholangiogram is paramount in helping to prevent

bile duct injury and evaluate for common bile duct stones. Correct biliary anatomy, filling of the

duodenum without evidence of common bile duct filling defects, and filling of the right and left hepatic

ducts should be visualized during IOC.

An alternative fluoroscopic method for evaluating the biliary tree is cholecystocholangiography

whereby the catheter is placed directly into the gallbladder and distended with dye which then flows

into the cystic duct. More commonly used in the infant and pediatric population where the cystic duct

may be very small and more difficult to cannulate[24], a variety of techniques for gallbladder access

have been described, including exteriorization of a portion of the gallbladder fundus through a 5 mm

port site [25]for cholecystostomy, percutaneous puncture of the gallbladder with or without fixation to

the abdominal wall[26, 27], and use of specialized clamps to fixate the gallbladder and facilitate

cholecystocholangiography[28].

There has been one randomized controlled trial that evaluated two techniques for IOC. In this

trial, 59 patients were randomized to IOC using a clamp device that helps insert a 5mm catheter into the

cystic duct or a clamp device that is placed through the right mid-subcostal port and clamps across the

neck of the gallbladder with a 19 gauge needle that can be introduced into the gallbladder[29]. They

reported no advantage of one catheter over the other and that both clamps facilitated IOC in just over

10 minutes and that surgeon preference should dictate which cannulation technique they should use

[29].

Several proposed techniques have been reported to aid in IOC in difficult cases but have not

been thoroughly tested. In cases where the cystic duct may be obstructed by stones, fibrosis, or

tortuous valves of Heister, maneuvers such as milking the stones from proximal in the cystic duct or

using a guide wire to help facilitate catheter insertion may be used[1, 30]. For patients with short,

thickened, or dilated cystic ducts that may not be amenable to clip placement and control of the

cholangiocatheter, a technique of using a vessel loop to encircle the catheter and cystic duct has been

reported as an alternative method of securing the cystic duct to reduce the risk of a cystic duct stump

leak[31].

Recommendation

There is no evidence to suggest that one of the available IOC techniques is superior to another.

Surgeons should therefore use the technique they are most comfortable and familiar with, taking

patient anatomy into consideration.

Quality of evidence: +, weak

Is there a benefit in using Glucagon during IOC?

The use of glucagon has been advocated as a useful adjunct for IOC and is commonly used.

There are various reports in the literature relating to implications of glucagon on the sphincter of Oddi

as well as the clinical significance of its use for cholangiography will no real consensus.

Several studies have reported on the beneficial effects of glucagon on relaxation of the

sphincter of Oddi and improved visualization of cholangiography with its use [32-40] while others have

reported no discernible benefit to its use [41-43]. One study evaluated the use of 1 or 2mg of

intravenous glucagon and reported that a dose of 1mg is equally as effective as 2mg during

cholangiography[36]. Proponents of the use of glucagon cite the ease of use and relatively low

incidence of side effects. Only one reported major side effect was noted and reported in a 60 year old

male with an unsuspected pheochromocytoma that had an intraoperative cardiac crisis as glucagon can

also provoke catecholamine release[44]. They recommended that appropriate pharmacologic

catecholamine antagonist be available when administering glucagon to help prevent this potential side

effect[44]. For clinical use, the most valuable role for glucagon involves cases where the common bile

duct does not empty into the duodenum, when attempting to flush small CBD stones into the

duodenum, or when performing a transcystic common bile duct exploration.

While there are small series that describe the use of glucagon in pediatric patients undergoing

IOC, all are in patients in whom the IOC was positive for a stone and an attempt was being made at

laparoscopic common bile duct exploration[30, 45]. There is a single case report utilizing both glucagon

and N-acetylcysteine to flush the biliary tree in a two month old with obstruction without complication

and with successful clearance of the stones and inspissated bile[46].

Recommendation:

Glucagon may be useful during IOC to allow small stones or contrast to pass into the duodenum by

relaxing the sphincter of Oddi. Given its low side effect profile, ease of use, and potential improvement

in visualization during IOC glucagon administration should be considered by surgeons when indicated

during IOC.

Grade: +, weak

What equipment is needed to perform IOC?

The technique of IOC has evolved since its first description with many advances to make the

procedure simpler, more reproducible, and efficient.

IOC can be performed with limited equipment and there are several different catheters that a

surgeon may choose based on their preference and experience. Many of the current IOC catheters and

cannulas have a kit with all equipment needed but can entail some or all of the following: a catheter or

cannula, a syringe, introducer needle/sheath, and a 3-way stopcock. As kits can often be costly,

cholangiography can also be performed quite cheaply by using a 3 French ureteral catheter and a

reusable cholangiogram clamp instrument. Additional equipment may be needed such as a clip applier

depending on the catheter being used in cases where the catheter needs to be secured in the cystic

duct-as most surgeons use a clip applier during laparoscopic cholecystectomy this is often already

available. Dye is also needed to perform the IOC and type of dye will vary based on institutional

protocols. Saline is also useful to flush the duct prior to and after dye administration. In cases of a small

or tortuous cystic duct, a selection of hydrophilic wires may prove beneficial. Mobile C-

arms/fluoroscopy is now common in most operating rooms and greatly facilitate IOC. Sterile covers for

the C-arm are needed. As mentioned previously glucagon may be used in some cases and can be

administered by anesthesiology. As the IOC involves radiation exposure, surgeons and operating room

personnel should have protection from either using lead aprons and neck protectors or lead shield

protectors.

As mentioned earlier, there is no available literature that demonstrates superiority of one

technique or equipment over another [29] and, therefore, techniques and equipment should be left up

to surgeon preference.

Recommendation:

Instrumentation needed for IOC includes a mobile C-arm or other fluoroscopy capability, radiopaque

dye, and a cholangiogram catheter or cannula of the surgeon’s choosing. Radiation protection in terms

of aprons/neck protectors or shields which surgeons/personnel may stand behind should be routinely

used. In the absence of clear evidence for the superiority of specific equipment or IOC technique, the

choice of equipment and technique are left at the discretion of the surgeon.

Grade: +, weak

What is the sensitivity and specificity of IOC for detecting Bile Duct Pathology?

Cholangiography can be a straightforward technique but is not attainable in all cases due to

various reasons relating to anatomy. Reported successful cholangiography rates for both pediatric and

adult patients range from 82%-97% with the majority of studies citing success rates over 90% [15, 21,

29, 30, 47-59].

The sensitivity of IOC for detecting CBD stones ranges from 75%-100% while the specificity

ranges from 76.2-100% with most reports citing greater than 90% sensitivity and specificity. The positive

predictive value of IOC ranges from 94.5%-100% and the negative predictive value ranges from 91.4%-

100%. Accuracy of IOC has been reported to range from 92.2%-99% in detecting stones [50, 54, 59-65].

In the infant population where IOC is performed to elucidate the etiology of persistent neonatology, the

success rate is significantly lower and directly correlates with the size and appearance of the gallbladder.

If the gallbladder is visibly highly atretic as in biliary atresia, some authors no longer persist in

attempting a cholangiogram and proceed with the Kasai procedure directly with 100% accuracy[25, 26],

though one cohort reported an IOC success rate of 86% in this same population[66]. In infants with

normal sized gallbladders, retrospective case series from four different authors all report 100%

sensitivity and specificity for evaluation of bile duct patency[12, 25, 26, 66].

Recommendation:

IOC has a high sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy for detecting

CBD stones and neonatal biliary pathology. Surgeons should use this technique freely when indicated

and become familiar with its interpretation.

Grade: ++, Strong

How long does it take to perform IOC?

One argument against the routine use of IOC has been that it prolongs the duration of

laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Reports of timing for IOC vary based on technique, experience with the

procedure, and setting (teaching hospital or not). Reported duration of laparoscopic IOC ranges from

4.3-18 minutes [15, 26, 29, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 67, 68]; longer duration of the procedure is associated

with limited availability of fluoroscopy, inadequate surgical skill, and infrequent use of the procedure

[69].

Recommendation:

IOC during laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimally prolongs the duration of the procedure in

experienced hands. Limited use of IOC and unfamiliarity with the procedure by surgeons and operating

room personnel can, however, considerably prolong the procedure indicating a need for its more

frequent use.

Grade: ++, weak

Alternatives to intraoperative assessment of the biliary tree

Are there other operative modalities that can be used instead of IOC to evaluated CBD/Anatomy?

There have been two main reported alternative intraoperative techniques to intraoperative

cholangiogram to evaluate the biliary tree and include laparoscopic ultrasonography and infrared

fluorescent cholangiography.

Laparoscopic Ultrasound

Laparoscopic ultrasound assessment of the biliary tree has emerged as an alternative to IOC and

attempts to improve upon some of the potential drawbacks of IOC including radiation exposure,

operative time, and failure rate. Various techniques have been described for laparoscopic ultrasound

assessment of the biliary tree but are traditionally done using the same laparoscopic ports as a standard

4 port cholecystectomy. A flexible ultrasound device is then placed through the epigastric or umbilical

port. The fundus of the gallbladder is retracted cephalad and the US probe is placed over the common

bile duct where the junction of the right and left hepatic ducts as well as the cystic duct junction can be

visualized. The US probe can then follow the common bile duct down to the duodenum to evaluate for

common bile duct stones and other pertinent anatomy.

Laparoscopic ultrasound has been adopted by many surgeons as an alternative to intraoperative

cholangiogram and numerous studies with various methodologies have reported on the safety and

efficacy of this technique. To date, many of the studies have had small sample sizes which have limited

the comparisons to IOC. A recent meta-analysis has evaluated laparoscopic ultrasonography compared

to IOC to evaluate if it is a comparable intraoperative imaging modality[70]. The primary outcome was

the presence or absence of common bile duct stones; studies were excluded for the following reasons:

no comparison to IOC on the same patient population, open cases, ultrasound performed by novices

(less than 20 cases), no prospective data collection, and if they did not provide enough data for

sensitivity, specificity, true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative[70]. Based on the

11 studies that met the inclusion criteria the pooled sensitivity for detecting common bile duct stones

for IOC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.77-0.93) and pooled specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-0.99) while laparoscopic

ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80-0.92) and specificity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00)

[70]. This well done meta-analysis reports that laparoscopic ultrasound is an accurate means of

intraoperative assessment for common bile duct stones in comparison to IOC[70]. It is important to

note that this study did not evaluate laparoscopic ultrasound as a tool to correctly identify biliary

anatomy or help prevent common bile duct injuries, and, to date, there has been no conclusive data on

this topic. One multicenter review of the use of laparoscopic ultrasound in 1,381 patients that reported

no major bile duct injuries concluded that this technique may help prevent bile duct injuries [71].

Some potential benefits of laparoscopic ultrasound have been reported including a decrease in

time as well as a potential for decreased cost[72, 73]. Reported times for laparoscopic ultrasound

averaged ranged from 6.6—11.6 minutes compared to average times for intraoperative cholangiogram

ranging from 10.9-17.9 minutes with all studies reporting shorter time using the laparoscopic

ultrasound [54, 62, 63, 67, 68, 74]. Laparoscopic ultrasound has been applied to the pediatric

population as well, and shows promise in identifying microlithiasis in the setting of a normal IOC [75].

Recommendation:

Laparoscopic ultrasound is a feasible alternative intraoperative method compared to intraoperative

cholangiogram for detection of common bile ducts stones. Laparoscopic ultrasound may have some

advantages over intraoperative cholangiogram, including decreased time to perform the technique.

Grade: +++, Strong

Near-Infrared Fluorescent cholangiography

Fluorescent cholangiography was first described in 2009 and involves the preoperative

intravenous injection of indocyanine green (ICG) and is based on the concept that ICG is excreted

exclusively into the bile and that protein-bound ICG emits light with a peak wavelength of 830 nm when

illuminated with near-infrared light[76-79] [62-65].

Various devices and methods have been reported for fluorescent cholangiography but all are

based on the administration of ICG either intra-biliary or intravenous and the use of a specialized

camera system which uses near-infrared light to allow the surgeon to view the fluorescing ICG and

evaluate the biliary anatomy. For this spotlight, the review of fluorescent cholangiography will be

limited to the use during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The structures that are reported that can be

identified during laparoscopic fluorescent cholangiography before the dissection of Calot’s triangle

include the cystic duct, common hepatic duct, common bile duct and the junction of the cystic duct with

the common hepatic duct. Reported rates of visualization of these structures range from 71.4-100% for

the cystic duct, 33.3-100% for the common hepatic duct, 25-100% for the cystic duct/common hepatic

duct junction and 50-100% for the common bile duct[76, 77, 80-86]. There are no data on its use in the

pediatric population.

One study looked at identification of the biliary tree both before and after dissection of Calot’s

triangle using ICG and found that fluorescent imaging visualized the cystic duct, CD-CHD, CHD, and CBD

in 69.6 % to 95.1% of the patients[87]. This was a 2-3 fold increase in identification of biliary anatomy

when compared to no dissection at all[87]. Acute inflammation and thickness of the tissues (>5-10mm)

overlying the triangle and porta hepatitis were a limiting factors[87]. However, BMI was found to not be

a statistically significant variable. In patients where IOC was not successful, the fluorescent imaging was

successful in 80% of the cases in identifying the extrahepatic biliary anatomy[87](Narula et.al).

Recently, the use of fluorescent cholangiography during robotic traditional and single site

cholecystectomies has been reported. Several authors have reported on case series ranging from 44-

184 cases reporting the safety and efficacy of this technology during robotic cholecystectomy[83, 85,

86].

The use of fluorescent cholangiography to detect biliary stones is limited. Detection of

simulated common bile duct stones in a mouse model using fluorescence has been reported[88]. Osayi

et al. looked at 82 patients and found that fluorescent imaging was unable to identify

choledocholithiasis and sludge; hence, IOC remains the gold standard in this setting[87].

One study has evaluated the cost and operative time of fluorescent cholangiography with

intraoperative cholangiogram in 45 patients compared to historical controls[89]. They reported a lower

individual median cost per patient (13.97 ± 4.3 vs 778.43 ± 0.4 USD, p=0.00001) and faster procedure

times (0.71 ± 0.26 vs 7.15 ±- 3.76 minutes, p<0.0001) for fluorescent cholangiography compared to

intraoperative cholangiogram[89].

Recommendation:

Fluorescent cholangiography is a novel emerging technique that is feasible and safe for use

during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ranges for identification of various anatomic structures vary and

the technology has not been evaluated under varied biliary pathologies. There is currently insufficient

evidence for use of fluorescent cholangiography to evaluate for common bile duct stones, reduce bile

duct injuries, or to evaluate efficacy compared to intraoperative cholangiography and its role for use has

yet to be truly defined. Fluorescent cholangiography may able to be performed with less time and

expense than conventional intraoperative cholangiograms.

Grade: +, weak

References:

1. MacFadyen, B.V., Intraoperative cholangiography: past, present, and future. Surg Endosc, 2006. 20 Suppl 2: p. S436-40.

2. Reich, A., Accidental injection of bile ducts with petrolatum and bismuth paste. JAMA, 1918. 71: p. 1555.

3. Tenney, C. and S. Patterson, Injection of the bile ducts with bismuth paste. JAMA, 1922. 78: p. 171.

4. Ginzburg, L. and E.W. Benjamin, Lipiodol Studies of Post-Operative Biliary Fistulae. Ann Surg, 1930. 91(2): p. 233-41.

5. Mirizzi, P.L., La Cholangiografia Durante las Operaciones de las Vias Biliares. Bol Soc Cir Buenos Aires, 1932. 16: p. 1133.

6. Swenson, O. and J.H. Fisher, Utilization of cholangiogram during exploration for biliary atresia. N Engl J Med, 1952. 247(7): p. 247-8.

7. Lackner, J. and L. Volkel, Die Technik der Intraoperative Cholangiographie unter Verwendung desRoentgen-Bildverstaerkers. Roentgenbl, 1957. 10: p. 119.

8. Stefanini, P., La Roentgentscopia Televisiva Intraoperatoria delle Vie Biliari. Gaz Intern Med E Chir, 1963. 48: p. 1435.

9. Grace, R.H. and V.G. Peckar, The value of operative cholangiography using an image intensifier and a television monitor. Br J Surg, 1968. 55(12): p. 933-8.

10. Whitaker, P.H., E.G. Parkinson, and J.H. Hughes, Television fluoroscopy for operative cholangiography. An analysis of 150 cases. Clin Radiol, 1968. 19(4): p. 368-78.

11. Berci, G., et al., Operative fluoroscopy and cholangiography. The use of modern radiologic technics during surgery. Am J Surg, 1978. 135(1): p. 32-5.

12. Tang, S.T., et al., The evaluation of laparoscopy-assisted cholangiography in the diagnosis of prolonged jaundice in infants. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2009. 19(6): p. 827-30.

13. Overby, D.W., et al., SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc, 2010. 24(10): p. 2368-86.

14. Eikermann, M., et al., Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc, 2012. 26(11): p. 3003-39.

15. Ford, J.A., et al., Systematic review of intraoperative cholangiography in cholecystectomy. Br J Surg, 2012. 99(2): p. 160-7.

16. Buddingh, K.T., et al., Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: a review of current and future patient safety interventions. Surg Endosc, 2011. 25(8): p. 2449-61.

17. Flum, D.R., et al., Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy and survival in medicare beneficiaries. JAMA, 2003. 290(16): p. 2168-73.

18. Sheffield, K.M., et al., Association between cholecystectomy with vs without intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common duct injury. JAMA, 2013. 310(8): p. 812-20.

19. Kelley-Quon, L.I., et al., Complications of pediatric cholecystectomy: impact from hospital experience and use of cholangiography. J Am Coll Surg, 2014. 218(1): p. 73-81.

20. Tornqvist, B., et al., Effect of intended intraoperative cholangiography and early detection of bile duct injury on survival after cholecystectomy: population based cohort study. BMJ, 2012. 345: p. e6457.

21. Alvarez, F.A., et al., Impact of routine intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy on bile duct injury. Br J Surg, 2014. 101(6): p. 677-84.

22. Raval, M.V., T.B. Lautz, and M. Browne, Bile duct injuries during pediatric laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national perspective. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2011. 21(2): p. 113-8.

23. Strasberg, S.M., M. Hertl, and N.J. Soper, An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg, 1995. 180(1): p. 101-25.

24. Seleem, M.I., A.M. Al-Hashemy, and S.S. Meshref, Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children under 10 years of age with sickle cell disease. ANZ J Surg, 2005. 75(7): p. 562-5.

25. Okazaki, T., et al., Diagnostic laparoscopy-assisted cholangiography in infants with prolonged jaundice. Pediatr Surg Int, 2006. 22(2): p. 140-3.

26. Hay, S.A., et al., Neonatal jaundice: the role of laparoscopy. J Pediatr Surg, 2000. 35(12): p. 1706-9.

27. Houben, C.H., et al., Hitching the gallbladder in laparoscopic-assisted cholecysto-cholangiography: a simple technique. Pediatr Surg Int, 2013. 29(9): p. 953-5.

28. Holcomb, G.W., 3rd, et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in infants and children: modifications and cost analysis. J Pediatr Surg, 1994. 29(7): p. 900-4.

29. Buddingh, K.T., et al., Kumar versus Olsen cannulation technique for intraoperative cholangiography: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc, 2013. 27(3): p. 957-63.

30. Hill, S.J., et al., Management of the pediatric patient with choledocholithiasis in an era of advanced minimally invasive techniques. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2014. 24(1): p. 38-42.

31. Fayek, S.A., C. Varga, and K. Lee, A reliable method for handling the "difficult" cystic duct to obtain a good cholangiogram during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 2007. 21(6): p. 1020-2.

32. Ponce, J., et al., Effect of intravenous glucagon and glucagon-(1-21)-peptide on motor activity of sphincter of Oddi in humans. Dig Dis Sci, 1989. 34(1): p. 61-4.

33. Mahmud, S., et al., Radiological treatment of retained bile duct stones following recent surgery using glucagons. Surg Endosc, 2001. 15(11): p. 1359-60.

34. Jones, R.M., et al., Reversal of biliary sphincter spasm with low dose glucagon during operative cholangiography. Anaesth Intensive Care, 1983. 11(2): p. 174-5.

35. Tabak, C.A., et al., Glucagon enhancement of cholangiography. A preliminary report. Arch Surg, 1983. 118(1): p. 84-5.

36. Evans, A.F. and G.H. Whitehouse, Further experience with glucagon enhanced cholangiography. Clin Radiol, 1980. 31(6): p. 663-5.

37. Jarrett, L.N. and G.D. Bell, Effect of intravenous glucagon on the biliary secretion of a cholangiographic agent in man. Clin Radiol, 1980. 31(6): p. 657-61.

38. Bordley, J.t. and J.E. Olson, The use of glucagon in operative cholangiography. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1979. 149(4): p. 583-4.

39. Evans, A.F. and G.H. Whitehouse, The effect of glucagon on infusion cholangiography. Clin Radiol, 1979. 30(5): p. 499-506.

40. Cannon, P. and D. Legge, Glucagon as a hypotonic agent in cholangiography. Clin Radiol, 1979. 30(1): p. 49-52.

41. Biliotti, D., et al., Effect of glucagon on sphincter of Oddi motor activity. Digestion, 1989. 43(4): p. 185-9.

42. Cofer, J.B., et al., Effect of intravenous glucagon on intraoperative cholangiography. South Med J, 1988. 81(4): p. 455-6.

43. Jarrett, L.N., et al., Glucagon and infusion cholangiography. Br J Radiol, 1982. 55(652): p. 269-71.

44. Schorr, R.T. and S.N. Rogers, Intraoperative cardiovascular crisis caused by glucagon. Arch Surg, 1987. 122(7): p. 833-4.

45. Short, S.S., et al., Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in children is associated with decreased cost and length of stay: results of a two-center analysis. J Pediatr Surg, 2013. 48(1): p. 215-20.

46. Berrani, H., et al., Association of N-acetylcysteine and glucagon during percutaneous cholangiography in the treatment of inspissated bile syndrome. Arch Pediatr, 2015. 22(3): p. 300-2.

47. Pietrabissa, A., et al., Comparative evaluation of contact ultrasonography and transcystic cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. Arch Surg, 1995. 130(10): p. 1110-4.

48. Rawlings, A., et al., Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience with critical view of safety dissection and routine intraoperative cholangiography. J Am Coll Surg, 2010. 211(1): p. 1-7.

49. Hublet, A., et al., Laparoscopic ultrasonography as a good alternative to intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of prospective study. Acta Chir Belg, 2009. 109(3): p. 312-6.

50. Li, J.W., et al., Intraoperative cholangiography in combination with laparoscopic ultrasonography for the detection of occult choledocholithiasis. Med Sci Monit, 2009. 15(9): p. MT126-30.

51. Ludwig, K., J. Bernhardt, and D. Lorenz, Value and consequences of routine intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2002. 12(3): p. 154-9.

52. Kimura, T., et al., Laparoscopic ultrasonography and operative cholangiography prevent residual common bile duct stones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 1999. 9(2): p. 124-8.

53. Csendes, A., et al., Prevalence of common bile duct stones according to the increasing number of risk factors present. A prospective study employing routinely intraoperative cholangiography in 477 cases. Hepatogastroenterology, 1998. 45(23): p. 1415-21.

54. Birth, M., et al., Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic ultrasonography using a flexible-tip ultrasound probe and intraoperative dynamic cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(1): p. 30-6.

55. Hope, W.W., et al., Teaching cholangiography in a surgical residency program. J Surg Educ, 2013. 70(2): p. 243-7.

56. Gyorgy, L., et al., Evaluation of perioperative cholangiography in one thousand laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Magy Seb, 2006. 59(2): p. 91-6.

57. Wenner, D.E., et al., Actual time required for dynamic fluoroscopic intraoperative cholangiography. JSLS, 2005. 9(2): p. 174-7.

58. Collins, C., et al., A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg, 2004. 239(1): p. 28-33.

59. Waldhausen, J.H., D.D. Graham, and D. Tapper, Routine intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes unnecessary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in children. J Pediatr Surg, 2001. 36(6): p. 881-4.

60. Videhult, P., G. Sandblom, and I.C. Rasmussen, How reliable is intraoperative cholangiography as a method for detecting common bile duct stones? : A prospective population-based study on 1171 patients. Surg Endosc, 2009. 23(2): p. 304-12.

61. Singh, G., et al., Role of selective intra-operative cholangiography during cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg, 2000. 70(2): p. 106-9.

62. Catheline, J., N. Rizk, and G. Champault, A comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound versus cholangiography in the evaluation of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Ultrasound, 1999. 10(1): p. 1-9.

63. Thompson, D.M., et al., A comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound with digital fluorocholangiography for detecting choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(7): p. 929-32.

64. Rothlin, M.A., et al., Laparoscopic ultrasonography during cholecystectomy. Br J Surg, 1996. 83(11): p. 1512-6.

65. Barteau, J.A., et al., A comparison of intraoperative ultrasound versus cholangiography in the evaluation of the common bile duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 1995. 9(5): p. 490-6.

66. Huang, L., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystocholangiography for diagnosis of prolonged jaundice in infants, experience of 144 cases. Pediatr Surg Int, 2010. 26(7): p. 711-5.

67. Catheline, J.M., et al., Evaluation of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: laparoscopic ultrasound versus intraoperative cholangiography: a prospective study of 150 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1998. 8(2): p. 85-91.

68. Stiegmann, G.V., et al., Laparoscopic ultrasonography as compared with static or dynamic cholangiography at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective multicenter trial. Surg Endosc, 1995. 9(12): p. 1269-73.

69. Massarweh, N.N., et al., Surgeon knowledge, behavior, and opinions regarding intraoperative cholangiography. J Am Coll Surg, 2008. 207(6): p. 821-30.

70. Aziz, O., et al., Laparoscopic ultrasonography versus intra-operative cholangiogram for the detection of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Surg, 2014. 12(7): p. 712-9.

71. Machi, J., et al., The routine use of laparoscopic ultrasound decreases bile duct injury: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc, 2009. 23(2): p. 384-8.

72. Biffl, W.L., et al., Routine intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography with selective cholangiography reduces bile duct complications during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg, 2001. 193(3): p. 272-80.

73. Falcone, R.A., Jr., et al., A prospective comparison of laparoscopic ultrasound vs intraoperative cholangiogram during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 1999. 13(8): p. 784-8.

74. Catheline, J.M. and G. Champault, Laparoscopic ultrasound in abdominal surgery. Acta Chir Belg, 1998. 98(2): p. 55-61.

75. Neff, L.P., et al., Microlithiasis, endoscopic ultrasound, and children: not just little gallstones in little adults. J Pediatr Surg, 2011. 46(3): p. 462-6.

76. Ishizawa, T., Y. Bandai, and N. Kokudo, Fluorescent cholangiography using indocyanine green for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an initial experience. Arch Surg, 2009. 144(4): p. 381-2.

77. Ishizawa, T., et al., Intraoperative fluorescent cholangiography using indocyanine green: a biliary road map for safe surgery. J Am Coll Surg, 2009. 208(1): p. e1-4.

78. Landsman, M.L., et al., Light-absorbing properties, stability, and spectral stabilization of indocyanine green. J Appl Physiol, 1976. 40(4): p. 575-83.

79. Mordon, S., et al., Indocyanine green: physicochemical factors affecting its fluorescence in vivo. Microvasc Res, 1998. 55(2): p. 146-52.

80. Ishizawa, T., et al., Fluorescent cholangiography illuminating the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg, 2010. 97(9): p. 1369-77.

81. Aoki, T., et al., Intraoperative fluorescent imaging using indocyanine green for liver mapping and cholangiography. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2010. 17(5): p. 590-4.

82. Kaneko, J., et al., Indocyanine green reinjection technique for use in fluorescent angiography concomitant with cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2012. 22(4): p. 341-4.

83. Buchs, N.C., et al., Intra-operative fluorescent cholangiography using indocyanin green during robotic single site cholecystectomy. Int J Med Robot, 2012. 8(4): p. 436-40.

84. Schols, R.M., et al., Fluorescence cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a feasibility study on early biliary tract delineation. Surg Endosc, 2013. 27(5): p. 1530-6.

85. Spinoglio, G., et al., Real-time near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent cholangiography in single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC): a single-institutional prospective study. Surg Endosc, 2013. 27(6): p. 2156-62.

86. Daskalaki, D., et al., Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent cholangiography during robotic cholecystectomy: results of 184 consecutive cases in a single institution. Surg Innov, 2014. 21(6): p. 615-21.

87. Osayi, S.N., et al., Near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography facilitates identification of biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 2015. 29(2): p. 368-75.

88. Figueiredo, J.L., et al., Intraoperative near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (NIRFC) in mouse models of bile duct injury. World J Surg, 2010. 34(2): p. 336-43.

89. Dip, F.D., et al., Cost analysis and effectiveness comparing the routine use of intraoperative fluorescent cholangiography with fluoroscopic cholangiogram in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 2014. 28(6): p. 1838-43.