Background: An international group proposed a standardized terminology to report outcomes after bile duct repair. Data on this surgical complication vary depending on the center and country where patients are treated. The aim of this work is to show disparities in the care process of bile duct injury between patients from two different income-level countries, using a standard terminology of outcomes and clinical reporting.
Methods: A retrospective review comparing primary repair and re-repaired cases performed in an upper middle-income country (UMIC) versus primary repair cases treated in a high-income country (HIC) was performed. All pertinent data included in the tabular reporting system and outcomes classification were collected. Patients' characteristics were reported by calculating descriptive statistics.
Results: A total of 261 patients from UMIC (148 (56%) primary repair and 113 (44%) re-repair) were compared with 122 primary repair from HIC. Open cholecystectomy (55.4% vs 3.3%) and more E4 injuries (37.8% vs 19.7%) were found in the UMIC group. More Accordion 3 and higher complications were present in the UMIC primary and repair groups, as well as more episodes of postoperative acute cholangitis. Eleven patients were listed for liver transplant in the UMIC re-repair group. Primary patency by the end of the index treatment period was present in 217 (83%) of the full UMIC cohort. Median time to loss of primary patency was not reached in the primary repair, and was 3.8 years in the re-repair group. Patency was below HIC primary repaired cases.
Conclusions: Standardized reporting outcomes after primary repair are applicable to re-repaired patients and are helpful to compare different populations, showing better outcomes in HIC. Measures of surgical access disparities exist among the process of bile duct injury care.
Keywords: Bile duct; Patency; Primary repair; Re-repair.