Management of Bile Leak Post Minimally Invasive Subtotal Cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive subtotal cholecystectomy (STC) is a safe alternative to minimally invasive cholecystectomy that prevents bile duct injury. Nonetheless, it is associated with higher rates of other complications, namely postoperative bile leak and symptomatic remnant cholelithiasis. BACKGROUND: Bile leak presents as biloma requiring drainage and subsequently high bilious drain output. It is more strongly associated with fenestrating STC. Fortunately, the majority are self-limited and do not require endoscopic intervention. Symptomatic remnant cholelithiasis presents as recurrent gallstone disease postoperative cholecystectomy. METHODS: In this paper, we review available literature on these 2 complications and share our institutional algorithm on the management of bile leak. RESULTS: Our approach to bile leak advocates for intraoperative drain placement, early characterization of the leak, watchful waiting, the use of sinogram, and reserving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and stenting for high-grade leaks or refractory cases. Symptomatic remnant cholelithiasis is more strongly associated with reconstituting STC, particularly in cases where the gallbladder stump is long or stones are not completely evacuated from the remnant. This complication should be treated with complete cholecystectomy when possible, but can also be managed with gallbladder-preserving cholecystolithomy in patients with aberrant biliary anatomy and/or significant comorbidities. Completion cholecystectomy is a technically challenging operation that benefits from hepatopancreaticbiliary expertise and intraoperative adjuncts such as near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography or intraoperative cholangiogram. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive STC effectively prevents bile duct injury but at the expense of increased postoperative morbidity; it is a bailout strategy that should be used judiciously.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".