15Jun 2017


  • General Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Background and purpose: The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1989 marked the beginning of the laparoscopic revolution. Despite of the rapid learning curve, the complication rates of bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy count from 0.4% to 0.5% compared to 0.2% after open cholecystectomy. Strasberg et al., introduced an important method to reduce BDIs in1995, who described how a critical view of safety (CVS). Materials and Methods: This study was carried on 30 patients with chronic calcular cholecystitis in the department of General Surgery, Zagazig University Hospitals during the period from September 2015 to September 2016. The patients divided into two groups : Group (A): was managed by critical view of safety technique .Group (B): was managed by conventional infundibular technique. Results: The age of the studied patients in group (A) ranging from 25-56 years old with mean 37.8?9.9 and most of the studied patients are females(73.3%) and in group (B) ranging from 23-51 years old with mean 39.5?8.2 and most of the studied patients are females(73.3%). infundibular technique has significantly longer Operative time. no significant association between bleeding and groups. no significant association as all cases with no intraoperative bile injury. there is significant association as regard drain insertion between CVS and infundibular groups . no significant difference in hospital stay as all cases discharged on the 1st postopratve day. Conclusions: The critical view of safety has an important role in decreasing the operative time because of the safe accurate identification of the anatomy that allow the surgeon to proceed without fear of misidentification .

  1. Berci G, Hunter J, Morgenstern L, Arregui M and Brunt M (2014): Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: first, do no harm; second, take care of bile duct stones. Apr; 27(4):1051-4.
  2. Vettoretto N, Saronni C, Harbi A, Balestra L, Taglietti L and Giovanetti M. (2011): Criticalview of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS;15:322?5.
  3. Dziodzio T, Weiss S, Sucher R, Pratschke J and? Biebl M(2014): A ?critical view? on a classical pitfall in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? International Journal of Surgery Case Reports?? 5 : 1218?1221.
  4. Nijssen MA, Schreinemakers JM, Meyer Z, van der Schelling GP, Crolla RM and Rijken AM (2014): Complications After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Video Evaluation Study of Whether the Critical View of Safety was Reached.World J Surg. 2015 Jul;39(7):1798-1803.
  5. Strasberg SM and Brunt LM.(2010): Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparo-scopic cholecystectomy. J Am CollSurg 2010;211:132?8.
  6. Yegiyants S and Collins JC.(2008): Operative strategy can reduce the incidence of major bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg;74(10):985-987.
  7. Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z, Baltatzi L, Dervenis C.(2009): One thousandlaparoscopic cholecystectomies in a single surgical unit using the ?critical viewof safety? technique. J Gastrointest Surg;13:498?503.
  8. YAMASHITA Y, KIMURAT, and MATSUMOTOS (2010):A Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Depends upon the Establishment of a Critical View of Safety, Surg Today : 40:507?513

[Khaled Safwat, Abd Elhafez El Shewail, Abd Elrahman Metwalli, Gamal Osman, Waleed Abd Elhady, Muhammad Baghdadi , Tamer El Shahidy and Saad Nagy Msce. (2017); VALUE OF CRITICAL VIEW OF SAFETY TECHNIQUE IN LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (6). 503-508] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Khaled Safwat
General Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt.


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/4440       DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4440

Share this article