Antegrade Versus Retrograde Cholecystectomy: What’s in a Name?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I have read the article entitled “Laparoscopic anterograde cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis” with much interest [1]. The word antegrade refers to moving or extending forward as opposed to retrograde which implies moving backward or opposite to the direction of flow. These are commonly used in medical terminology as a cholangiogram done from the ampulla toward the bile duct is an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; similarly, a retrograde pyelogram refers to intravasation of contrast from the urethra toward the kidneys. Also when referring to endovascular vessel access, an antegrade approach confers with cannulation of the vessel proximal to site of the lesion, whereas in a retrograde approach, the access vessel is distal to the target lesion. Therefore, it appears that the terms antegrade and retrograde not only take into consideration direction of flow but also the relative anatomical position. Interestingly flow of bile is bi-directional in a reversed manner from the bile duct into the cystic duct when sphincter of Oddi is closed and in a forward direction with contraction of the gallbladder and relaxation of the sphincter of Oddi [2]. This concept of flow therefore cannot be used as a basis for determination of antegrade or retrograde cholecystectomy. The terms antegrade and retrograde cholecystectomy have been introduced over time and with the advances in surgical practice. However, to apply these terms descriptively to the removal of the gallbladder is very enigmatic and controversial as the literature is fraught with inconsistency. I refer to Kelly et al where a retrograde cholecystectomy is considered a fundus first approach [3]. Contradictory to this, Neri et al describes a fundus first approach as antegrade [4]. Admittedly this concept was difficult to grasp; however, antegrade or retrograde is based on the surgeon’s perspective and his intended end point. The current standard for cholecystectomy is via a laparoscopic approach with initial dissection of Calot’s triangle followed by fundic dissection off the liver bed. Theoretically from the laparoscopic surgeon’s perspective, this is an antegrade dissection, and the same is true for an open procedure where the fundus is dissected followed by Calot’s triangle. Prior to the laparoscopic era in the 1980s, this terminology was also surrounded by much controversy. As highlighted there is confusion and the accuracy of the nomenclature comes into question. It is advised that there is standardization of the terminology. We recommend that the terms antegrade and retrograde be substituted for “Fundus First” and “Calot’s First” approach for cholecystectomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".