• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Characterization of Biliary Injury after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a High-Volume Hospital System

Characterization of Biliary Injury after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a High-Volume Hospital System

Julia F Kohn1, Alexander Trenk2, Brittany Lapin2, John G Linn2, Stephen Haggerty2, Woody Denham2, Ray Joehl2, Michael B Ujiki2. 1University of Illinois at Chicago Medical School, 2Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the prevalence of, and risk factors for, biliary injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) within one four-hospital healthcare system.

METHODS: 500 cases between 2009 and 2015 were randomly selected and retrospectively reviewed, and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. A single reviewer examined all operative notes, thereby including all cases of BDI regardless of severity, ICD code, or need for a second procedure. Biliary injuries were classified per Strasberg et al (1995). Logistic regression models were utilized to identify univariate predictors of biliary injuries.

RESULTS: 30.4% of charts stated that the Critical View of Safety was obtained, and 12.4% of charts described the critical view in detail consistent with the definition by Strasberg and the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program. Six patients (1.2%) had a biliary injury (BDI) either intra- or postoperatively; two of those six had multiple BDI.

CONCLUSIONS: The rate of BDI in this study, 1.2%, is higher than the 0.3% rate cited by SAGES. Nearly all of the patients with biliary injury in this study had Class A and Class D injuries, and all were repaired within the institution; these are less likely to be identified by larger BDI studies. Although only 6 patients had a biliary complication, this study did identify potential risk factors. The only positive predictor was acute cholecystitis on pathology findings; necrosis/gangrene per surgeon and pathology and acute cholecystitis per surgeon were significantly increased in BDI patients, and there was also a trend towards significance with acute surgery. This seems to contradict findings from the Cochrane review of early LC for acute cholecystitis, which found no increase in BDI for patients having acute surgery for acute cholecystitis; however, the review also found high levels of bias in the studies used.

There is no correlation of Critical View of Safety with prevention of biliary injury, although only 12.4% of charts could be verified as following the method correctly. The low rates of documented CVS in the overall study population indicate that this technique is still not widely implemented. Furthermore, the utility of the Critical View is to prevent injury due to misidentification of structures, and is probably less likely to prevent class A injuries. Better implementation of the Critical View of Safety, and increased caution in dissecting acutely inflamed tissues, may be in order to prevent even minor biliary injuries.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 79699

Program Number: S009

Presentation Session: Biliary

Presentation Type: Podium

50

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals