Users Online : 772 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
  Search
 
  
 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Article in PDF (761 KB)
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 ¤  Abstract
 ¤ Introduction
 ¤ Patients and Methods
 ¤ Results
 ¤ Discussion
 ¤ Conclusion
 ¤  References
 ¤  Article Figures
 ¤  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2653    
    Printed45    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded86    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
 Table of Contents     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 330-333
 

Intra-cholecystic approach for laparoscopic management of Mirizzi's syndrome: A case series


Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), New Delhi, India

Date of Submission18-Jan-2015
Date of Acceptance10-Nov-2015
Date of Web Publication8-Sep-2016

Correspondence Address:
Hirdaya H Nag
Room No. 220, Academic Block, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), New Delhi - 110 002
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.182652

Rights and Permissions

 ¤ Abstract 

Introduction: Laparoscopic management of patients with Mirizzi's syndrome (MS) is not routinely recommended due to the high risk of iatrogenic complications. Patients and Methods: Intra-cholecystic (IC) or inside-gall bladder (GB) approach was used for laparoscopic management of 16 patients with MS at a tertiary care referral centre in North India from May 2010 to August 2014; a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Results: Mean age was 40.1 ± 14.7 years, the male-to-female ratio was 1:3, and 9 (56.25%) patients had type 1 MS (MS1) and 7 (43.75%) had type 2 MS (MS2) (McSherry's classification). The laparoscopic intra-cholecystic approach (LICA) was successful in 11 (68.75%) patients, whereas 5 patients (31.25%) required conversion to open method. Median blood loss was 100 mL (range: 50-400 mL), and median duration of surgery was 3.25 h (range: 2-7.5 h). No major complications were encountered except 1 patient (6.5%) who required re-operation for retained bile duct stones. The final histopathology report was benign in all the patients. No remote complications were noted during a mean follow-up of 20.18 months. Conclusion: LICA is a feasible and safe approach for selected patients with Mirizzi's syndrome; however, a low threshold for conversion is necessary to avoid iatrogenic complications.


Keywords: Cholecystectomy, complications, inside-gall bladder (GB) approach, intra-cholecystic (IC), IC approach, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, Mirizzi's syndrome (MS)


How to cite this article:
Nag HH, Gangadhara VB, Dangi A. Intra-cholecystic approach for laparoscopic management of Mirizzi's syndrome: A case series. J Min Access Surg 2016;12:330-3

How to cite this URL:
Nag HH, Gangadhara VB, Dangi A. Intra-cholecystic approach for laparoscopic management of Mirizzi's syndrome: A case series. J Min Access Surg [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 May 6];12:330-3. Available from: https://www.journalofmas.com/text.asp?2016/12/4/330/182652



 ¤ Introduction Top


Mirizzi's syndrome (MS) is a type of obstructive jaundice resulting from the impaction of a sizable stone at gall bladder (GB) neck or inside cystic duct. It was first detected by Kehr (1905), and later on Pablo Mirizzi (1948) described this entity as a syndrome.[1],[2] MS is reported to occur in 0.06-5.7% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis.[3],[4] On the basis of endoscopic cholangiography findings, McSherry described two types of MS. Type 1 (MS1) is characterised by external compression of the common hepatic duct (CHD) by an impacted GB stone, and type 2 (MS2) is characterised by CHD obstruction resulting from inflammation, and direct fistulisation of the GB stone into the bile duct.[5] Csendes et al. further classified MS2 into three subtypes and described that subtotal cholecystectomy (SC) with choledochoplasty is the most suitable procedure for the majority of patients with MS; however, depending upon the situation, other procedures are also required.[3]

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the 'gold standard' for the management of patients with cholelithiasis. The reported incidence of bile duct injury (BDI) after LC for uncomplicated cholelithiasis is below 0.5%.[6],[7] The incidence of BDI after laparoscopic total/SC for MS ranges 2.5-22%.[8],[9] The high incidence of BDI in patients with MS is mainly due to technical difficulty created by an impacted stone, presence of inflammation and dense fibrosis.[10] The inside-GB (intra-cholecystic) approach may be an alternative approach for LC in patients with severe fibrosis, including patients with MS.[11] We hereby report our experience of 16 patients with MS who were managed by laparoscopic intra-cholecystic approach (LICA) or inside-GB approach.


 ¤ Patients and Methods Top


LICA was used for the management of 16 patients with MS from May 2010 to August 2014 at a tertiary care centre in North India. All patients were operated upon by a single surgeon ( first author). Demographic characteristics, clinical features, investigations, operative details and postoperative complications were recorded prospectively. Preoperative work up included clinical physical examination, complete blood count (CBC), international normalised ratio (INR), renal function test (RFT), liver function test (LFT), ultrasound of the abdomen (US), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) [Figure 1]. Endobiliary stent was placed in patients with cholangitis and/or in patients with incomplete clearance of common bile duct stones (CBDS). All patients with suspicion of gall bladder cancer (GBC) were advised contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). If suspicion of GBC was verified by CECT, then these patients were not considered for LICA. In order to avoid iatrogenic complications, a low threshold for conversion to the open method was maintained. The duration of surgery was recorded in hours, blood loss was recorded in milliliters (mL) and McSherry's classification system was used to describe the types of MS.[5] Postoperative complications were recorded as major if intervention or surgery was required, otherwise they were regarded as minor.
Figure 1: MRCP of a patient with MS2

Click here to view


Operative steps

Patient position was supine, with legs apart; the camera assistant stood between the legs; the operating surgeon was on the left side of the patient, and in total five access ports were used. Maryland dissector, unipolar diathermy (L-hook), Harmonic scalpel (Ethicon Endosurgery, Johnson & Johnson, Cincinnati, USA), and ligaclips were used for dissection and haemostasis. An oblique cholecystostomy was made over GB neck and the liquid content of the GB was sucked out [Figure 2]a. The cholecystostomy was extended up to the anterolateral wall of the CBD if associated CBDS were present. Extraction of the stone was followed by a sudden gush of bile in patients with MS2, which was meticulously sucked out [Figure 2]b. The posterior (hepatic) wall of the GB was dissected away and transected at an appropriate distance from the junction of GB and CHD [Figure 3]a. Dissection of the hepatocystic triangle to identify the cystic artery was avoided, but it was ligated separately wherever possible [Clipped structure in [Figure 3]. GB flaps were approximated with interrupted Polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures (3-0, Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Aurangabad, India) [Figure 3]b. Intaoperative cholangiogram was performed in all the patients with choledochotomy. [BV Pulsera, Phillips, Holland]. The choledochotomy was closed over a 'T' tube and it was removed after 6 weeks. The check cholangiogram was always performed before the removal of 'T' tube.
Figure 2: Showing extraction of impacted gall bladder stone through cholecystostomy (2a), and suction of 'gush of bile' after stone extraction (2b)

Click here to view
Figure 3: Showing transaction of gall bladder (3a), and choledochoplsty (3b with inset)

Click here to view


Follow-up

Patients were followed up at every 3 months in the first year, every 6 months in the second year and yearly thereafter. Clinical evaluation and LFT were advised at every visit, and further investigations advised as indicated.

Statistical analysis

IBM SPSS version 20 (IBM, Chicago) was utilised for analysis; numerical data were represented as mean, median and range; categorical data were represented as percentages.


 ¤ Results Top


The mean age was 40.1 ± 14.7 years, the female-to-male ratio was 3:1, preoperative diagnosis of MS was possible in 12 (75%), and the ratio of MS1 to MS2 was 9:7. Pain in upper abdomen was a universal symptom, and 6 (37.5%) patients had jaundice/cholangitis. Serum alkaline phosphatase (>117 U/L) was raised in 14 (87.5%) patients [Table 1]. LICA was successful in 11 (68.5%) patients, while 5 patients (31.5) required conversion; and the rate of conversion was not different between MS1 and MS2 [Table 2]. One patient (6.2%) required re-operation for a retained CBDS. Biopsy report of GB specimen was chronic cholecystitis in 15 (93.8%), and xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis in 1 (6.2%) patient. Mean follow-up was of 20.28 months, and there were no remote complications during this period [Table 2].
Table 1: Demographic characteristics, clinical features and blood investigations

Click here to view
Table 2: Operative and post operative detailss

Click here to view



 ¤ Discussion Top


The standard approach for LC involves extra-cholecystic (EC) dissection between GB neck and CHD to obtain a critical view of safety. In patients with MS, this particular surgical step is technically difficult and associated with a high risk of BDI. LICA avoids this step and reduces the risk of BDI; none of our patients sustained BDI, and similar results were reported by Hubert et al.[11] Early cholecystostomy and removal of an impacted stone facilitates better identification of GB boundary from the inside and guides to a safe SC. Depending upon the situation, remnant GB (part attached to CHD) can be left open with obliteration of cystic duct (as described by Hubert et al.) or it can be closed as choledochoplasty; however, in patients with MS2, the latter is necessary. Precaution should be taken to avoid a large GB stump, which can predispose to recurrence of GB stones in future.

Preoperative diagnosis and proper surgical planning are important for the prevention of surgical complications in patients with MS.[12],[13] The diagnosis of MS should be suspected in every patient with impacted stone at GB neck, especially when it is associated with proximal dilatation of the bile duct and/or deranged LFT.[13],[14],[15] Preoperative diagnosis of MS was available in 75% of patients in the present series, which helped in anticipation of problems and proper decision-making. LICA should be abandoned in all patients with preoperative or intraoperative suspicion of GBC because it may lead in dissemination of an otherwise resectable disease. The reported incidence of GBC in MS varies 5.3-28%;[8],[16],[17] however, there were no patients with GBC in our series. This may be due to improved imaging technology and proper case selection; a recent series also reported a similar experience.[18]

The conversion rate of the present series was lower than most of the earlier reports;[8],[9],[10],[19] however, it was higher than mentioned by Chowbey et al.[20] A low threshold for conversion is necessary to avoid iatrogenic complications and should not be considered as a failure. Spillage of GB contents and dissemination of an occult GBC is a real risk with LICA. The risk of infective complications and dissemination of occult GBC is also associated with SC by the open approach, but this risk is very high with LICA. Controlled evacuation of GB contents and use of an endobag may reduce the contact period of GB and its contents with the abdominal cavity, consequently reducing the risk of infective complications and dissemination of GBC. A patient with cholelithiasis needs careful evaluation to exclude GBC before laparoscopic surgery. A patient with even a remote suspicion of GBC should be treated as a patient with confirmed malignancy, and the appropriate approach should be adopted to avoid fatal complications and litigation. All the GB specimens should be sent for frozen biopsy and an appropriate surgical procedure should be added, if indicated.

The treatment of MS is mainly surgical, except in high-risk patients who can be treated with ERC with or without use lithotripsy.[21] SC with or without CBD exploration is usually adequate for most of the patients with MS, but patients with friable bile duct and biliary stricture require bilioenteric anastomosis (Roux-en-Y). With the development of a minimally invasive (MI) approach, more complicated diseases (MS2 and/or cholecysto-enteric fistula) have been successfully treated with the MI approach.[22] Recently, a combined endoscopic and robotic approach for the management of MS has been described.[23]


 ¤ Conclusion Top


Finally, we can conclude that LICA is a feasible and safe approach for the management of selected patients with MS; however, a low threshold for conversion is necessary to avoid iatrogenic complications.

Financial Support and Sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
 ¤ References Top

1.
Kehr H. Die in Meiner Klink Geübte Technik der Gallesteinoperationen Mit Einem Hinweis auf die indikationen und die Dauererfolge auf Grund Eigener, bei 1000 Laparotomien Gesammelter Erfahrungen. Lehman, Munich, Germany: München, J.F. Lehmann's Verlag, 1905, 8°, XXIV, (2), IV, (2), 395 pp.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mirizzi PL. Sindrome del conducto hepatico. J Int Chir 1948;8:731-77.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Csendes A, Díaz JC, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Nava O. Mirizzi syndrome and cholecystobiliary fistula: A unifying classification. Br J Surg 1989;76:1139-43.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Beltran MA, Csendes A, Cruces KS. The relationship of Mirizzi syndrome and cholecystoenteric fistula: Validation of a modified classification. World J Surg 2008,32;2237-44.   Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
McSherry CK, Ferstenberg H, Virshup M. The Mirizzi syndrome: Suggested classification and surgical therapy. Surg Gastroenterol 1982;1: 219-25.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Tantia O, Jain M, Khanna S, Sen B. Iatrogenic biliary injury: 13,305 cholecystectomies experienced by a single surgical team over more than 13 years. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1077-86.   Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Waage A, Nilsson M. Iatrogenic bile duct injury: A population-based study of 152 776 cholecystectomies in the Swedish inpatient registry. Arch Surg 2006;141:1207-13.   Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Schäfer M, Schneiter R, Krähenbühl L. Incidence and management of Mirizzi syndrome during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17: 1186-92.   Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bagia JS, North L, Hunt Dr. Mirizzi syndrome: An extra hazard for laparoscopic surgery. ANZ J Surg 2002;71:394-7.   Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Erben Y, Benavente-Chenhalls LA, Donohue JM, Que FG, Kendrick ML, Reid-Lombardo KM, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Mirizzi Syndrome: 23-year Mayo Clinic experience. J Am Coll Surg 2011;213:114-21.   Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Hubert C, Annet L, van Beers BE, Gigot JF. The “inside approach of the gallbladder” is an alternative to the classic Calot's triangle dissection for a safe operation in severe cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 2010;24:2626-32.   Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Kwon AH, Inui H. Preoperative diagnosis and efficacy of laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of Mirizzi syndrome. J Am coll surg 2007; 204:409-15.   Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Makridis C. Laparoscopic treatment of Mirizzi syndrome: A systemic review. Surg Endosc 2010;24:33-9.   Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Becker CD, Hassler H, Terrier F. Preoperative diagnosis of the Mirizzi syndrome: Limitations of sonography and computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143:591-6.   Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Turner MA, Flutcher AS. The cystic duct: Normal anatomy and disease processes. Radiographics 2001;21:3-22; questionnaire 288-94.   Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Prasad TL, Kumar A, Sikora SS, Saxena R, Kapoor VK. Mirizzi syndrome and gallbladder cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2006;13:323-6.   Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.
Redaelli CA, Büchler MW, Schilling MK, Krähenbühl L, Ruchi C, Blumgart LH, et al. High coinicidence of Mirizzi syndrome and gallbladder carcinoma. Surgery 1997;121:58-63.   Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cue Y, Liu Y, Li Z, Zhao E, Zhang H, Cui N. Appraisal of diagnosis and surgical approach for Mirizzi syndrome. ANZ J Surg 2012,82:708-13.   Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Targarona EM, Andrade E, Balagué C, Ardid J, Trías M. Mirizzi's syndrome. Diagnostic and therapeutic controversies in the laparoscopic era. Surg Endosc 1997;11:842-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chowbey PK, Sharma A, Mann V, Khullar R, Baijal M, Vashistha A. The management of Mirizzi syndrome in the laparoscopic era. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2000;10:11-4.   Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.
Binmoeller KF, Thonke F, Soehendra N. Endoscopic treatment of Mirizzi's syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:532-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.
Chwbey PK, Bandyopadhyay SK, Sharma A, Khullar R, Soni V, Baijal M. Laparoscopic management of cholecystoenteric fistulas. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2006;16:467-72.   Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Lee KF, Chong CN, Ma KW, Cheung E, Wong J, Cheung S, et al. A minimally invasive strategy for Mirizzi syndrome: The combined endoscopic and robotic approach. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2690-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04