Hepaticojejunostomy With or Without Permanent Duodenal Access Loop in Treatment of Iatrogenic Bile Ducts Injuries, a Comparative Study

This study is a comparative study, comparing between two groups of patients with post cholecystectomy biliary injury, group (I) 21 patients, a retrospective group where data was collected from the medical records of the patients presented with post cholecystectomy biliary injury and managed with hepaticojejunostomy without access loop in a period of 2 years between January 2013 and December 2014, and group (II) 23 patients, a prospective group, where patients presented with post cholecystectomy biliary injury in a 2 years period between January 2017 and December 2018 , and managed by hepaticojejunostomy and jejunoduodenostomy as a permanent access loop . the data collected from both groups included, demographic criteria of patients, type of the previous surgery, place of surgery, the class of the biliary injury according to bismuth classification, (according to Bismuth classification; type I (Low injury, stump length \> 2 cm), type II) (higher injury, stump length \< 2 cm), type III (high CHD injury but confluence is preserved), type IV (high injury both hepatic ducts are no more connected.). And any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention carried out before surgical management. The detailed surgical management; in group I a roux en y hepaticojejunostomy was done, after abdominal exploration and identification of the level of injury or stricture a ROUX en Y loop of the jejunum was prepared 40 cm post duodenojujenal junction, it was separated and anastomosed to the jejunum at a more distal point ( 60 cm ) the proximal end of the distal loop was closed in two layers with Vicryl 3\\0 the loop was extracted retrocolic towards the site of injury where a hepaticojejunostomy was done end( biliary)to side (jejunum with Vicryl 4\\0 size single layer . in the second group the same was done but with jejunoduodenostomy side to side at 5-10 cm distal to the site of hepaticoduodenostomy as a permanent access loop. Follow up data either clinical, laboratory or radiologic were collected, findings of MRCP (if needed) was reported as primary outcome. Secondary outcome (management of complications), including the operative time needed for correction of the complications, early and late postoperative morbidity and mortality. The data was analyzed properly using SPSS 18, and presented in a suitable way using graphs figures and tables.