Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevention of bile duct injury: the case for incorporating educational theories of expertise

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Over 700,000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies are performed yearly in the US. Despite multiple advantages of laparoscopic surgery, the increased rate of bile duct injury (BDI) compared to the traditional, open approach to cholecystectomy remains problematic. Due to the seriousness of bile duct injury, the time has come for an aggressive educational campaign to better train laparoscopic surgeons in order to reduce the incidence of this life-threatening and expensive complication.

Methods

We performed a literature review of what is currently known about the causes of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Based on these reviews, we identified educational theories of expertise that may be relevant in understanding variable rates of BDI between surgeons. Finally, we applied educational theories of expertise to the problem of BDI in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to propose how to develop and design an effective educational approach for the prevention of BDI.

Results

Multiple studies demonstrate that the primary causes of BDI during laparoscopic cholecystectomy are non-technical. Additionally, there exists a learning curve in which the rates of BDI are higher in a surgeon’s earlier cases compared to later cases and that some surgeons perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy with significantly fewer injuries than others. Educational theories indicate that interventions that optimize novice to expert development require (1) revealing expert knowledge to novices and (2) scaffolding the mental habits of expert-like learners.

Conclusions

BDI is an appropriate target for the application of educational theories of expertise. Designing better educational interventions for the prevention of BDI will require uncovering the hidden knowledge of expert surgeons and incorporating the processes of reinvestment and progressive problem solving that are inherent to expert performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shaffer EA (2006) Gallstone disease: epidemiology of gallbladder stone disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20:981–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H (1990) Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211:60–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolfe BM, Gardiner B, Frey CF (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A remarkable development. J Am Med Assoc (JAMA) 265:1573–1574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL, Ashley SW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new ‘gold standard’? Arch Surg 127:917–921; discussion 921–913

  5. Schirmer BD, Edge SB, Dix J, Hyser MJ, Hanks JB, Jones RS (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Treatment of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Ann Surg 213:665–676; discussion 677

  6. Unger SW, Rosenbaum G, Unger HM, Edelman DS (1993) A comparison of laparoscopic and open treatment of acute cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 7:408–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morgenstern L, Wong L, Berci G (1992) Twelve hundred open cholecystectomies before the laparoscopic era. A standard for comparison. Arch Surg 127:400–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Waage A, Nilsson M (2006) Iatrogenic bile duct injury: a population-based study of 152 776 cholecystectomies in the Swedish Inpatient Registry. Arch Surg 141:1207–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harboe KM, Bardram L (2011) The quality of cholecystectomy in Denmark: outcome and risk factors for 20,307 patients from the national database. Surg Endosc 25:1630–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flum DR, Dellinger EP, Cheadle A, Chan L, Koepsell T (2003) Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. J Am Med Assoc (JAMA) 289:1639–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Navez B, Ungureanu F, Michiels M, Claeys D, Muysoms F, Hubert C, Vanderveken M, Detry O, Detroz B, Closset J, Devos B, Kint M, Navez J, Zech F, Gigot JF (2012) Surgical management of acute cholecystitis: results of a 2-year prospective multicenter survey in Belgium. Surg Endosc 26:2436–2445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Misra M, Schiff J, Rendon G, Rothschild J, Schwaitzberg S (2005) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve: what should we expect? Surg Endosc 19:1266–1271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stewart L, Way LW (1995) Bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Factors that influence the results of treatment. Arch Surg 130:1123–1128; discussion 1129

  14. Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237:460–469

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tornqvist B, Stromberg C, Persson G, Nilsson M (2012) Effect of intended intraoperative cholangiography and early detection of bile duct injury on survival after cholecystectomy: population based cohort study. BMJ (Clin Res Edn) 345:e6457

    Google Scholar 

  16. Alkhaffaf B, Decadt B (2010) 15 years of litigation following laparoscopic cholecystectomy in England. Ann Surg 251:682–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andersson R, Eriksson K, Blind PJ, Tingstedt B (2008) Iatrogenic bile duct injury—a cost analysis. HPB 10:416–419

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carroll BJ, Birth M, Phillips EH (1998) Common bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy that result in litigation. Surg Endosc 12:310–313; discussion 314

  19. McLean TR (2005) Monetary lessons from litigation involving laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 71:606–612

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berci G, Hunter J, Morgenstern L, Arregui M, Brunt M, Carroll B, Edye M, Fermelia D, Ferzli G, Greene F, Petelin J, Phillips E, Ponsky J, Sax H, Schwaitzberg S, Soper N, Swanstrom L, Traverso W (2013) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: first, do no harm; second, take care of bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 27:1051–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ausania F, Holmes LR, Ausania F, Iype S, Ricci P, White SA (2012) Intraoperative cholangiography in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era: why are we still debating? Surg Endosc 26:1193–1200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Buddingh KT, Weersma RK, Savenije RA, van Dam GM, Nieuwenhuijs VB (2011) Lower rate of major bile duct injury and increased intraoperative management of common bile duct stones after implementation of routine intraoperative cholangiography. J Am Coll Surg 213:267–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Massarweh NN, Flum DR (2007) Role of intraoperative cholangiography in avoiding bile duct injury. J Am Coll Surg 204:656–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dekker SW, Hugh TB (2008) Laparoscopic bile duct injury: understanding the psychology and heuristics of the error. ANZ J Surg 78:1109–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Archer SB, Brown DW, Smith CD, Branum GD, Hunter JG (2001) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a national survey. Ann Surg 234:549–558; discussion 558–549

  27. Csikesz NG, Singla A, Murphy MM, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2010) Surgeon volume metrics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 55:2398–2405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Voitk AJ, Tsao SG, Ignatius S (2001) The tail of the learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 182:250–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Morgenstern L, McGrath MF, Carroll BJ, Paz-Partlow M, Berci G (1995) Continuing hazards of the learning curve in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 61:914–918

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Calvete J, Sabater L, Camps B, Verdu A, Gomez-Portilla A, Martin J, Torrico MA, Flor B, Cassinello N, Lledo S (2000) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: myth or reality of the learning curve? Surg Endosc 14:608–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alderson D (2010) Developing expertise in surgery. Med Teach 32:830–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abernethy B, Poolton JM, Masters RS, Patil NG (2008) Implications of an expertise model for surgical skills training. ANZ J Surg 78:1092–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kanter SL (2012) The need for more sophisticated simulation applications to teach and assess expert judgment. Acad Med 87:833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Patel VL, Glaser R, Arocha JF (2000) Cognition and expertise: acquisition of medical competence. Clin Invest Med 23:256–260

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schaverien MV (2010) Development of expertise in surgical training. J Surg Educ 67:37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moulton CA, Regehr G, Lingard L, Merritt C, MacRae H (2010) Slowing down to stay out of trouble in the operating room: remaining attentive in automaticity. Acad Med 85:1571–1577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moulton CA, Regehr G, Mylopoulos M, MacRae HM (2007) Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Acad Med 82:S109–S116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mylopoulos M, Woods NN (2009) Having our cake and eating it too: seeking the best of both worlds in expertise research. Med Educ 43:406–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M (1993) Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  40. Andersen DK (2012) How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgment? Acad Med 87:934–941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Clark RE, Estes F (1996) Cognitive task analysis for training. Int J Educ Res 25:403–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Clark RE, Pugh CM, Yates KA, Inaba K, Green DJ, Sullivan ME (2012) The use of cognitive task analysis to improve instructional descriptions of procedures. J Surg Res 173:e37–e42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery–a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139:1215–1220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schaafstal A, Schraagen JM, van Berlo M (2000) Cognitive task analysis and innovation of training: the case of structured troubleshooting. Hum Factors 42:75–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Feldon DF, Timmerman BC, Stowe KA, Showman R (2010) Translating expertise into effective instruction: the impacts of cognitive task analysis (CTA) on lab report quality and student retention in the biological sciences. J Res Sci Teach 47:1165–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Velmahos GC, Toutouzas KG, Sillin LF, Chan L, Clark RE, Theodorou D, Maupin F (2004) Cognitive task analysis for teaching technical skills in an inanimate surgical skills laboratory. Am J Surg 187:114–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cleary TJ, Zimmerman BJ, Keating T (2006) Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Res Q Exerc Sport 77:251–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A (1996) Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: the role of goal setting and self-monitoring. J Appl Sport Psychol 8:60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A (1997) Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from process goals to outcome goals. J Educ Psychol 89:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A (1999) Acquiring writing revision skill: shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. J Educ Psychol 91:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thelwell RC, Maynard IW (2003) The effects of a mental skills package on ‘repeatable good performance’ in cricketers. Psychol Sport Exerc 4:377–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Steven Schwaitzberg, MD has ongoing consultant activities with Olympus, Stryker, Surgiquest, Neatstitch, Cambridge Endo, Human Extension and Acuity Bio. Sophia K. McKinley, MD, EdM and L. Michael Brunt, MD has no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Sophia K. McKinley

  2. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    L. Michael Brunt

  3. Department of Surgery, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Steven D. Schwaitzberg

Authors
  1. Sophia K. McKinley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Michael Brunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophia K. McKinley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKinley, S.K., Brunt, L.M. & Schwaitzberg, S.D. Prevention of bile duct injury: the case for incorporating educational theories of expertise. Surg Endosc 28, 3385–3391 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3605-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3605-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation