Mirizzi Syndrome-The Past, Present, and Future.

Mirizzi syndrome is a complication of gallstone disease caused by an impacted gallstone in the infundibulum of the gallbladder or within the cystic duct, causing chronic inflammation and extrinsic compression of the common hepatic duct or common bile duct. Eventually, mucosal ulceration occurs and progresses to cholecystobiliary fistulation. Numerous systems exist to classify Mirizzi syndrome, with the Csendes classification widely adopted. It describes five types of Mirizzi syndrome according to the presence of a cholecystobiliary fistula and its corresponding severity, and whether a cholecystoenteric fistula is present. The clinical presentation of Mirizzi syndrome is non-specific, and patients typically have a longstanding history of gallstones. It commonly presents with obstructive jaundice, and can mimic gallbladder, biliary, or pancreatic malignancy. Achieving a preoperative diagnosis guides surgical planning and improves treatment outcomes. However, a significant proportion of cases of Mirizzi syndrome are diagnosed intraoperatively, and the presence of dense adhesions and distorted anatomy at Calot's triangle increases the risk of bile duct injury. Cholecystectomy remains the mainstay of treatment for Mirizzi syndrome, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is increasingly becoming a viable option, especially for less severe stages of cholecystobiliary fistula. Subtotal cholecystectomy is feasible if total cholecystectomy cannot be performed safely. Additional procedures may be required, such as common bile duct exploration, choledochoplasty, and bilioenteric anastomosis. Conclusions: There is currently no consensus for the management of Mirizzi syndrome, as the management options depend on the extent of surgical pathology and availability of surgical expertise. Multidisciplinary collaboration is important to achieve diagnostic accuracy and guide treatment planning to ensure good clinical outcomes.

Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: comparison of reconstituting and fenestrating techniques.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is a safe bailout procedure in situations when dissection of "critical view of safety" is not possible. After the proposed classification of subtotal cholecystectomy into "fenestrating" and "reconstituting" techniques in 2016, a comparative review of the outcomes of both methods is timely. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database was conducted up to January 31, 2020 for studies that reported LSC. Studies reporting LSC only in patients with Mirizzi syndrome or xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis were excluded. Our analysis includes 39 studies with 1784 cases of LSC. We report a comparison of outcomes between reconstituting and fenestrating LSC on 1505 cases [935 reconstituting (62.1%) and 570 fenestrating (37.9%)]. RESULTS: Following LSC, the rate of open conversion is 7.7%, hemorrhage is 0.4%, bile duct injury is 0.3%, bile leak is 15.4%, retained stone is 4.6%, subhepatic or subphrenic collection is 2.9%, superficial surgical site infection is 2.0% and 30-day mortality is 0.2%. 8.8% of patients required postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 1.1% required percutaneous intervention, and 2.2% required reoperation. Compared to reconstituting LSC, fenestrating LSC has a higher incidence of open conversion (n = 58, 10.2% vs. n = 43, 4.6%, p < 0.001), retained stones (n = 38, 6.7% vs. n = 38, 4.1%, p = 0.0253), subhepatic or subphrenic collections (n = 33, 5.8% vs. n = 13, 1.4%, p < 0.001), superficial surgical site infections (n = 18, 3.2% vs. n = 14, 1.5%, p = 0.0303), postoperative ERCP (n = 82, 14.4% vs. n = 62, 6.6%, p < 0.001), and need for reoperation (n = 20, 3.5% vs. n = 12, 1.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although reconstituting LSC has better outcomes, both techniques are complementary. Intraoperative findings and surgical expertise impact the choice.