Role for laparoscopy in the management of bile duct injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common bile duct (CBD) injury is the most serious complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Recently, laparoscopic techniques have been used in the management of postoperative bile leak and CBD injury; this literature has not been reviewed. We reviewed the literature on CBD injury, the approach to its diagnosis and management, and reports of laparoscopic management techniques. We combined this review with our experience in laparoscopic methods to highlight diagnostic and therapeutic options. Laparoscopic techniques can be used to prevent, diagnose and treat CBD injuries. Intraoperatively, CBD injury can be prevented in the case of short cystic duct with the use of a loop ligature or transfixing suture, and it can be diagnosed using intraoperative cholangiography or other visualization techniques. When CBD injury is suspected postoperatively, repeat laparoscopy can be used to control sepsis with abdominal washout; as a diagnostic tool to guide management; and, in some settings, as a therapeutic tool for suturing small duct leaks, drain insertion and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy. Definitive laparoscopic repair is possible when certain criteria are met. Open surgery should be considered when the CBD is small, the injury occurred more than 72 hours previously, injury or anatomy are complex, port positioning is awkward for repair, or local experience is limited with laparoscopic management. There is an emerging role for laparoscopy in the management of CBD injuries. More case reports and series are needed to show the safety and efficacy of this technique, encourage its wider adoption, and allow outcomes assessment on a larger scale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".