[ Ana Sayfa | Editörler | Danışma Kurulu | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | E-Posta ]
Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi
2017, Cilt 31, Sayı 3, Sayfa(lar) 117-119
[ Özet ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ] [ Yazara E-Posta ] [ Editöre E-Posta ]
Laparoskopik Kolesistektomi Sırasında Subvezikal Kanalları Tanımak ve Ligate Etmek Safra Kaçaklarını Engeller mi?
Mustafa GİRGİN1, Burhan Hakan KANAT2, Ziya ÇETİNKAYA1, Mürşit DİNÇER3
1Fırat Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Genel Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, Elazığ, TÜRKİYE
2Elazığ Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Genel Cerrahi Kliniği, Elazığ, TÜRKİYE
3İstanbul Haseki Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Genel Cerrahi Kliniği, İstanbul, TÜRKİYE
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kolesistektomi sonrası safra kaçağı, subvesikalkanallar, safra kaçakları, Luschka kanalı
Özet
Amaç: Safra kesesi ile karaciğer arasında doğrudan safra kesesine açılan safra kanallarının gözden kaçması laparoskopik kolesistektomi sonrası safra kaçaklarına yol açabilir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: 230 laparoskopik kolesistektomi olgusu retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi ve 8 subvezikal safra kanalı tanınarak bağlandı.

Bulgular: Sekiz olgu da klip ya da Ligasure yardımı ile ligate edildi. Hiçbirinde safra kaçağı izlenmedi.

Sonuç: Subvezikal kanalların anatomik varyasyonları laparoskopik kolesistektomi sırasında risk oluşturmaktadır. Dikkatli ve titiz bir diseksiyon ile görerek tanıyıp ligate etmek safra kaçaklarını engelleyebilir.

  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • Giriş
    The subvesical ducts are small biliary ducts 1–2 mm in diameter, which usually originate in the right hepatic lobe. They may occur as a single duct or as a meshwork of ductules. Their course continues along the center or periphery of the gallbladder fossa and have variable drainage into the biliary tree 1. Most commonly, the ducts of Luschka, or subvesical ducts, are encountered in clinical practice as a result of their injury during laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. Injuries are manifested as a bile leak. Subvesical duct leaks follow those of the cystic duct as the most common cause of postcholecystectomy bile leaks 2-8.

    In this study our aim is to give the ratio of bile subvesical ducts during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to emphasize that bile leaks from small ducts can be prevented.

  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • Materyal ve Metot
    Two hundred thirty cholecystectomy cases operated by a single surgeon between 2001–2010 were examined. The cases with bile ducts starting from right liver ending in gall bladder were detected, the methods used for the closure of the ducts and the postoperative follow up were reported. The small bile ducts were recognized by encountering an unexpectant perforation of the gall bladder and observing the leak in the fossa by dissection or after completing the dissection of the gall bladder and seeing the leak from the fossa. The subvesical ducts were ligated by clips and ligasure. Subhepatic drains were placed in all cases. Patients were observed 2 days postoperatively. One month after surgery abdominal ultrasonography was performed.
  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • Bulgular
    Seventy six of 230 patiensts were diagnosed as acute cholecysititis. Mean age was 37.3 (17–82). Subvesical or aberrant bile ducts were seen in 3.47 % of patients (8 cases). Six patients were women, two were man, and two of these cases had acute cholecysititis. Ducts were ligated by clips in 5 cases and 3 by ligasure. There were no leaks and subhepatic drains were removed in the second day postoperatively. All of the data are summarised in Table 1.


    Büyütmek İçin Tıklayın
    Table 1: Results and data of patients

  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • Tartışma
    In 1863, Luschka reported a thin bile duct passing through the shallow gallbladder fossa to join the right hepatic or common hepatic duct. This duct is now known as the duct of Luschka or a subvesical bile duct. The ducts of Luschka occur in 20–50% of the population 1,2,9. Most commonly, the ducts of Luschka, or subvesical ducts, are encountered in clinical practice as a result of their injury during laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. Injuries are manifested as a bile leak. Bile leaks occur in 0.2–2% of cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy 10. Injury to the ducts of Luschka are a relatively frequent cause of such leaks.

    The ducts of Luschka, preoperative detection, preoperative imaging of the subvesical dusts of Luschka has have been reported. Kitami et al 11 performed drip-infusion cholangiography with computed tomography (DIC-CT) in 277 patients with cholelithiasis. Subvesical ducts were detected in 28 patients. Intraoperative detection and direct visualization of injured subvesical ducts were reported during the era of open cholecystectomy. We have not been able to find reports of subvesical ducts visualized during initial laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the literature. Postoperative detection in most cases is due to the leaks from injured subvesical ducts, which are diagnosed during the investigation of a postoperative bile leak after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, a patient with symptoms and signs which does not convey a normal postoperative course will undergo investigation with an abdominal ultrasound or CT scan. If a fluid collection is observed, this should be drained under radiologic guidance. If the collection contains bile, an external drainage catheter should be placed. A number of bile leaks will resolve spontaneously 12. The next step is to establish whether there is continuing leakage of bile. This can be accomplished with a variety of modalities, and each one of these can depict a leak from an injured subvesical duct. Fistulography is one of the simplest methods of diagnosing a biliary leak. Retrograde instillation contrast is performed through a surgically or percutaneously placed drain under fluoroscopy. This is performed to demonstrate a communication with the biliary tree. A subvesical duct leak may be detected by this method. Several authors share the opinion that this should be the initial study to be performed in suspected cases 2,13. HIDA scintigraphy is a dynamic study in which an ongoing bile leak may be detected. However, it provides suboptimal anatomic detail. A subvesical duct injury will be shown as extravasation of radionuclide from the gallbladder fossa 14. This is the most common initial study being used to detect a bile leak. Most often, it will lead to further investigation. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most commonly used modality in which subvesical duct leaks are diagnosed 3. ERCP also provides a therapeutic solution by reducing intrabiliary pressure with sphincterotomy and endobiliary stent placement. Recently, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been introduced into clinical practice for biliary leak detection 15. Reoperation and, specifically, relaparoscopy, can be performed in certain cases of postoperative biliary leaks. Injured subvesical ducts have been visualized during reoperation 16,17. In most cases, ligation of the injured duct and external drainage of bile was considered as sufficient treatment 10,16,17. Reoperation is usually performed when other less invasive modalities fail to either detect or resolve the leak, when they are unavailable, or when symptoms are severe enough to warrant reexploration.

    Known as Luschka, bile ducts were described for the first time in 1863 by the German anatomist Hubert von Luschka; draining right liver lobe to right hepatic duct or to the common bile ducts and a number of articles have been reported 18-21. For this reason, we encountered small bile ducts in a single surgeon series, we have identified 8 patients which does not fit the definition of Luschka ducts.

    In our study, we notified of bile ducts which are not associated with the injury of large bile ducts. The name of these ducts are subvesical bile ducts, hepatico-cholecystic ducts, or aberrant bile ducts. These ducts are opening to the lumen of the gall bladder and can be involved in bile duct injuries. Treatment modalities for bile duct injuries, may vary and can be different from our described approach.

    As a conclusion we may say that subvesical ducts or aberrant bile ducts can be detected during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the ligation of these ducts may pevent bile leaks.

  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • Kaynaklar

    1) Champetier J, Davin JL, Letoublon C, et al. Aberrant biliary ducts (vasa aberrantia): Surgical implications. Anat Clin 1982; 4: 137-145.

    2) Mergener K, Strobel JC, Suhocki P, et al. The role of ERCP in diagnosis and management of accessory bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 527-531.

    3) Sandha GS, Bourke MJ, Haber GB, Kortan PP. Endoscopic therapy for bile leak based on a new classification: Results in 207 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 567-574.

    4) Wills VL, Jorgensen JO, Hunt DR. Role of relaparoscopy in the management of minor bile leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 176-180.

    5) Kaffes AJ, Hourigan L, De Luca N, et al. Impact of endoscopic intervention in 100 patients with suspected postcholecystectomy bile leak. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 269-275.

    6) Lin RK, Hunt GC. Left hepatic duct of Luschka. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 984.

    7) Elmi F, Silverman WB. Nasobilary tube management of postcholecystectomy bile leaks. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 441-444.

    8) Misra M, Schiff J, Rendon G, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve. What should we expect? Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 1266-1271.

    9) Frakes JT, Bradley SJ. Endoscopic stent placement for biliary leak from an accessory duct of Luschka during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 90-92.

    10) Albasini JL, Aledo VS, Dexter SP, et al. Bile leakage following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1995; 9: 1274-1278.

    11) Kitami M, Murakami G, Suzuki D, et al. Heterogeneity of subvesical ducts or the ducts of Luschka: A study using dripinfusion cholangiography–computed tomography in patients and cadaver specimens. World J Surg 2005; 29: 217-223.

    12) Kimura T, Suzuki K, Umehara Y, et al. Features and management of bile leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2005; 12: 61-64.

    13) Suhocki PV, Meyers WC. Injury to aberrant bile ducts during cholecystectomy. A common cause of diagnostic error and treatment delay. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 955-959.

    14) Ramachandran A, Gupta SM, Johns WD. Various presentations of postcholecystectomy bile leak diagnosed by scintigraphy. Clin Nucl Med 2001; 26: 495-498.

    15) Vitellas KM, El-Dieb A, Vaswani KK, et al. Using contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with IV mangafodipirtrisodium (Teslascan) to evaluate bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy: A prospective study of 11 patients. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 409-416.

    16) De Palma GD, Galloro G, Iuliano G, et al. Leaks from laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2002; 49: 924-925.

    17) Azagra JS, De Simeone P, Goergen M. Is there a place for laparoscopy in management of postcholecystectomy biliary injuries? World J Surg 2001; 25: 1331-1334.

    18) Ramia JM, Muffak K, Mansilla A, et al. Postlaparoscopic cholecystectomy bile leak secondary to an accessory duct of Luschka. JSLS 2005; 9: 216-217.

    19) Spanos CP, Syrakos T. Bile leaks from the duct of Luschka (subvesical duct): A review. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006; 391: 441-447.

    20) Jahan M, Xiao P, Go A, Cheema M, Hameed A. Intraductal and invasive adenocarcinoma of duct of Luschka, mimicking chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis. World J Surg Oncol 2009; 7: 4.

    21) Aoki T, Imamura H, Sakamoto Y, et al. Bile Duct of Luschka connecting with the cystohepatic duct: the importance of cholangiography during surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 694-696.

  • Başa Dön
  • Özet
  • Giriş
  • Materyal ve Metot
  • Bulgular
  • Tartışma
  • Kaynaklar
  • [ Başa Dön ] [ Özet ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ] [ Yazara E-Posta ] [ Editöre E-Posta ]
    [ Ana Sayfa | Editörler | Danışma Kurulu | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | E-Posta ]