• 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 / How Often Do Surgeons Obtain the Critical View of Safety During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

How Often Do Surgeons Obtain the Critical View of Safety During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

Bindhu Oommen, MD, MPH, Brittany L Anderson-Montoya, PhD, Manuel Pimental, BS, Dimitrios Stefanidis, MD, PhD. Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC

INTRODUCTION

The reported incidence (0.4-0.5%) of bile duct injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is higher than during open cholecystectomy and has not decreased over time despite increasing experience with the procedure. The “critical view of safety” (CVS) has been suggested as a protective method to avoid BDI when certain criteria are met prior to division of any structures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adherence of practicing surgeons to the CVS criteria during LC.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

As part of an IRB approved quality improvement project, laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures performed by a variety of attending and private general surgeons at four institutions were recorded. Participation was voluntary. De-identified videos were reviewed by a blinded observer and rated on a six-point scale using the previously published CVS criteria by Strasberg (≤4 score represents inadequate CVS). The CVS was assessed just before the first structure was divided during LC. Operative data (including duration and difficulty on a five-point scale), patient demographics, and postoperative outcomes to 90 days were recorded. Operative notes were reviewed to assess whether surgeons indicated that they had obtained the critical view.

RESULTS

The rater assessed ten laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos, each involving a different surgeon. Patient characteristics were as follows: mean age 46.7±16.4 years, mean BMI 31.3±8.7 kg/m2, 80% women, 70% Caucasian race, 80% ASA Class II. Five patients had private insurance, 2 public, 2 both, and 1 was self-pay. The majority of cases were elective (80%) and outpatient (80%). Mean procedure duration was 95.4±51.7 minutes, and the average difficulty of the case as reported by the surgeon was 2.4±1.5.

The critical view of safety was adequately achieved (score 6) by only 2 (20%) of the surgeons; both surgeons dictated in their operative report that they obtained the CVS. The remaining eight surgeons did not obtain adequate CVS prior to division of any structures (score ≤4); the mean score of this group was 1.75 while two surgeons received a score of 0. One in four surgeons with scores ≤4 dictated that they had obtained the critical view. There were no significant postoperative complications in any of the observed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Widely accepted safety standards for the reduction of BDI during LC such as obtaining the CVS was not routinely used by the majority of general surgeons in our experience. Further, one-fourth of those who thought they obtained the CVS did so inadequately. Our findings suggest that education of practicing surgeons in the application of the CVS during LC is needed. If further evidence corroborates our findings it may explain, at least in part, the lack of improvement in BDI incidence despite increased experience with the procedure. Our study also supports the value of direct observation of surgical practices for quality improvement.

121

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