The clinical anatomy of cystic artery variations: a review of over 9800 cases

Andall, Rebecca G.; Matusz, Petru; Plessis, Maira du; Ward, Robert James; Tubbs, R. Shane; Loukas, Marios

doi:10.1007/s00276-015-1600-y

Cited by 67 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hepatobiliary (previously called Calot's) triangle in modern practice consists of the cystic duct as the inferior border, common hepatic duct as the medial border and inferior border of the liver as the superior border. The cystic artery lies within the triangle (82% in a recent review) [10]. Whilst identifying the cystic duct is mostly straightforward due to its continuity with the gallbladder neck (outdated infundibular technique), the cystic artery may be more difficult to identify [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cystic artery lymph node-is it a fixed important landmark during cholecystectomy?

Tiang¹,

Peng²,

Wysocki³

2017

Liver Pancreat Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is rare and often happens due to misidentification. Experts recommend dissection during laparoscopic cholecystectomy occur lateral to the cystic artery lymph node (LN). The LN is classically identified as a single node overlying the cystic artery and lateral to the bile duct. It thus represents another important landmark during LC. We present the first patient, to our knowledge, with 3 LNs in the hepatobiliary triangle. The laparoscopic cholecystectomy and recovery were uneventful. The LN is an important anatomical marker during LC and the presence of multiple LNs does not impact on surgical technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cystic artery lymph node-is it a fixed important landmark during cholecystectomy?

Tiang¹,

Peng²,

Wysocki³

2017

Liver Pancreat Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Items for the AQUA Tool were generated on the basis of (1) the extensive background of the steering committee in conceiving and executing anatomical metaanalyses and systematic reviews, and (2) a review of the anatomical literature (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015;Tomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016). No comprehensive systematic review of systematic reviews was performed because there was no previously-used quality assessment of anatomical studies, and the number of true evidence-based reviews and meta-analyses in the literature is limited.…”

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Design and Item Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) Tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta‐analyses and systematic reviews

Henry¹,

Tomaszewski²,

Ramakrishnan³

et al. 2016

Clinical Anatomy

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical appraisal of anatomical studies is essential before the evidence from them undergoes meta-epidemiological synthesis. However, no instrument for appraising anatomical studies with inherent applicability to different study designs is available. We aim to develop a generic yet comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of anatomical studies using a formal consensus method. The study steering committee formulated an initial conceptual design and generated items for a preliminary tool on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. A Delphi procedure was then adopted to assess the validity of the preliminary tool. Feedback from the Delphi panelists was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached about the items to be included. The preliminary tool consisted of 20 items, which were phrased as signaling questions and organized into five domains: 1. Aim and subject characteristics, 2. Study design, 3. Characterization of methods, 4. Descriptive anatomy, and 5. Results reporting. Each domain was set to end with a risk of bias question. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision, although agreement was reached regarding inclusion of all the domains and signaling questions in the preliminary tool. The tool was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The AQUA Tool was designed to assess the quality and reliability of anatomical studies. It is currently undergoing a validation process. Clin. Anat. 30:6-13,

show abstract

“…), and the extensive background of the steering committee in conducting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of anatomical studies (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015aRoy et al, , 2015bTomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016), we developed a preliminary conceptual design for the AQUA Checklist. In addition to items considered standard in reporting all medical studies (sample size, demographics, results, etc.…”

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Design and Item Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In that context, the authors of the present study have developed the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist, the aim of which is to improve the quality of reporting of anatomical studies. From our extensive experience of evidence-based anatomical studies (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015aRoy et al, , 2015bTomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016), we have found that such studies are often poorly reported, thus decreasing their reliability and increasing the risk of bias. A high reporting quality is imperative since understanding and knowledge of anatomy allows for successful clinical interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: Guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies

Tomaszewski¹,

Henry²,

Ramakrishnan³

et al. 2016

Clinical Anatomy

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of evidence-based anatomy has emphasized the need for original anatomical studies with high clarity, transparency, and comprehensiveness in reporting. Currently, inconsistencies in the quality and reporting of such studies have placed limits on accurate reliability and impact assessment. Our aim was to develop a checklist of reporting items that should be addressed by authors of original anatomical studies. The study steering committee formulated a preliminary conceptual design and began to generate items on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. This led to the development of a preliminary checklist. The validity of this checklist was assessed by a Delphi procedure, and feedback from the Delphi panelists, who were experts in the area of anatomical research, was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached regarding the items to be included in the checklist. The steering committee agreed to name the checklist AQUA. The preliminary AQUA Checklist consisted of 26 items divided into eight sections. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision and three new ones were introduced. The checklist was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The final version of the AQUA Checklist consisted of the initial eight sections with a total of 29 items. The steering committee hopes the AQUA Checklist will improve the quality and reporting of anatomical studies. Clin.

show abstract

The clinical anatomy of cystic artery variations: a review of over 9800 cases

Abstract: These variations are common in the general population and can lead to inadvertent ligation of biliary ducts or aberrant vessels. Therefore, it is important for the hepatobiliary surgeon to be aware of these vascular anomalies to avoid operative complications.

Cited by 67 publications

References 29 publications

Cystic artery lymph node-is it a fixed important landmark during cholecystectomy?

Cystic artery lymph node-is it a fixed important landmark during cholecystectomy?

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) Tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta‐analyses and systematic reviews

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: Guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About