The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bile Duct Injury During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of an Italian National Survey on 56 591 Cholecystectomies
Open accessAbstract
HYPOTHESIS: Bile duct injury (BDI) remains the most serious complication of cholecystectomy. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the incidence has become more frequent. This study verifies the current incidence, mechanism, presentation, and treatment of BDI occurring during LC in general surgical practice. DESIGN: Anonymous retrospective multicenter survey. SETTING: Department of surgery at a university referral center, collecting data from general surgical units. PATIENTS: Data from 56 591 patients who underwent LC between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2000, in 184 hospitals in Italy were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current incidence, mechanism, presentation, and treatment of BDI occurring during LC in general surgical practice. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five BDIs were reported, with an overall incidence of 0.42%. There were no risk factors in 80.0% of the patients. Poor identification of the anatomical features of the hepatic pedicle was the most frequently reported cause (36.8%), and technical problems accounted for 27.0% of causes. The incidence of BDI was higher during cholecystitis (P<.001) and decreased with increasing number of LCs performed by the surgical teams (P<.01). There was no difference in incidence according to technique (French or US) or to routine or selective intraoperative cholangiography. One hundred eight BDIs (46.0%) were recognized intraoperatively and immediately repaired in 89.8% of patients. One hundred twenty-seven BDIs (54.0%) were diagnosed postoperatively, the dominant manifestation being biliary fistula (44.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms a higher incidence of BDI during LC. It highlights the relevance of the number of previously performed LCs and of the correct surgical technique to avoid BDI. The need for correct procedures, adequate expertise of the repairing surgeon in BDI repairs, and a multidisciplinary approach in the management of BDI is emphasized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fluorescent cholangiography illuminating the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Ishizawa, T., Bandai, Y., Ijichi, M., Kaneko, J., Hasegawa, K., & Kokudo, N. (2010) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.7125 · Cited by 381
Gurusamy, K., Samraj, K., Gluud, C., Wilson, E., & Davidson, B. R. (2010) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6870 · Cited by 366
Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis
Gurusamy, K. S., Davidson, C., Gluud, C., & Davidson, B. R. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005440.pub3 · Cited by 327
van Manen, L., Handgraaf, H. J. M., Diana, M., Dijkstra, J., Ishizawa, T., Vahrmeijer, A. L., & Mieog, J. S. D. (2018) · Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1002/jso.25105 · Cited by 322
SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery
Overby, D. W., Apelgren, K. N., Richardson, W., & Fanelli, R. (2010) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1268-7 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Nuzzo, G.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2005-10-01
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 986
- ISSN
- 0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163393830
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bile Duct Injury During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of an Italian National Survey on 56 591 Cholecystectomies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.140.10.986
- The paper
- Nuzzo, G. (2005). Bile Duct Injury During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of an Italian National Survey on 56 591 Cholecystectomies. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.10.986
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.