Table of Contents
ISRN Minimally Invasive Surgery
Volume 2012, Article ID 469013, 5 pages
Clinical Study

Laparoscopic Intraoperative Cholangiography Interpretation by Surgeons versus Radiologists, A Comparative Study and Review of 200 Cholangiographies

1Department of General Surgery, Al Khor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar
2Department of Radiology, Al Khor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar
3Department of Geriatric Medicine, Al Amal Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar
4Department of Tropical Medicine, Ain Shams University, Egypt
5Department of General Medicine, Al Khor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar

Received 14 May 2012; Accepted 31 July 2012

Academic Editors: L. Boni, A. Dezawa, C.-G. Ker, and A. Umezawa

Copyright © 2012 Hany M. El-Hennawy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Introduction. In some medical centers, LIOC are exclusively interpreted by surgeons. The degree of accuracy of surgeon’s interpretation compared to that of radiologist (gold standard) and its clinical significance are not well studied. Objective. study whether surgeons are accurate in interpreting IOC or not by comparing the interpretation of LIOC by surgeons to the postoperative interpretation of same cholangiograms by radiologists, and study its clinical significance. Methods. A retrospective study of 200 consecutive patients who underwent selective LIOC in Al-Khor community hospital in Qatar during the period from May 2005 till December 2011. A radiology senior consultant blindly reviewed the cholangiograms (Reading B) then we compared these findings (ductal dilatation, defects of filling and passage of contrast into duodenum) to LIOC results that were reported intraoperatively by surgeons for the same patients (Reading A). Results. Ductal dilatation was found in (27.5%) of Reading A compared to 19% in Reading B. filling defects were reported in (20.5%) of Reading A compared to 14.5% in Reading B. Conclusion. there is significant difference of LIOC interpretation between surgeons and radiologist specially in the detection of defects of fillings although this variability did not affect the clinical outcome.