EDUCATION

Rationale and Use of the Critical View

of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Steven M Strasberg, MD, FACS, L Michael Brunt, MD, FACS
gallbladder, is part of the plate/sheath system of the liver.9,10
The third requirement is that 2 structures, and only 2, should
be seen entering the gallbladder. Once these 3 criteria have
been fulfilled, CVS has been attained (Fig. 1).
The rationale of CVS is based on a 2-step method for
ductal identification that was and continues to be used in
open cholecystectomy. First, by dissection in the triangle of
Calot, the cystic duct and artery are putatively identified
and looped with ligatures. Next, the gallbladder is completely
dissected off the cystic plate, demonstrating that the 2 structures are the only structures still attached to the gallbladder
(Fig. 2). Incorporation of the freeing of the gallbladder off the
cystic plate so that the gallbladder is hanging from the cystic
duct and artery is superior to simply demonstrating that 2
structures are entering the gallbladder because it shows that
2 and only 2 structures are attached to the gallbladder.
During our early experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, attempts were made to replicate this open approach
laparoscopically.4 However, considerable difficulties were encountered. First, it was more difficult laparoscopically to take
the gallbladder off the cystic plate completely without first
dividing the cystic duct and artery than it was with the open
technique. Another problem was the gallbladder tended to
twist on the cystic structures after it was freed from its
attachments to the liver, resulting in greater difficulty in
clipping and dividing the cystic artery and duct. In the
course of these laparoscopic attempts to mimic the open
method, it was realized that the same fidelity of identification obtained by taking the gallbladder off the cystic plate
completely could be achieved by clearing only the lower
part of the gallbladder off the plate, leaving the upper part
of the gallbladder attached. In addition, the twisting problem, which occurred when the gallbladder was detached
completely, was not present when the fundus of the gallbladder remained attached to the liver. At that point, the
question became what was the least amount of gallbladder
that must be separated from the cystic plate to achieve the
fidelity of identification attained when the whole gallbladder is removed. Logically, the amount is that which allows
the surgeon to conclude that the gallbladder is being dissected off the cystic plate itself and not just being separated
from attachments within the triangle of Calot (Fig. 3A). In
our 1995 article,2 this was demonstrated pictorially (Fig.
1), as opposed to stipulating a fixed extent of cystic plate
that had to be exposed, because the area that had to

The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy was associated with a sharp rise in the incidence of biliary injuries.1
Despite the advancement of laparoscopic cholecystectomy
techniques, biliary injury continues to be an important problem today, although its true incidence is unknown. The most
common cause of serious biliary injury is misidentification.
Usually, the common bile duct is mistaken to be the cystic
duct and, less commonly, an aberrant duct is misidentified as
the cystic duct.2 The former was referred to as the classical
injury by Davidoff and colleagues, who described the usual
pattern of evolution of the injury at laparoscopic cholecystectomy.3 In 1995, we authored an analytical review of this subject and introduced a method of identification of the cystic
structures referred to as the critical view of safety (CVS)2
(Fig. 1). (This approach to ductal identification had been described in 1992,4 but the term critical view of safety was used
first in our 1995 article.) During the past 15 years, this
method has been adopted increasingly by surgeons around the
world for performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.5-8
When the method was initially described, it was done so with
a brief description and picture, without a thorough explanation of the rationale for this approach.2 The primary purpose
of this short communication is to present that rationale so that
surgeons can better apply CVS by understanding why the
method is protective against misidentification. A second purpose is to review the current status of the use of CVS and to
suggest approaches that might reduce the incidence of biliary
injury through its use.
Rationale of the CVS

The CVS has 3 requirements.2 First, the triangle of Calot

must be cleared of fat and fibrous tissue. It does not require
that the common bile duct be exposed. The second requirement is that the lowest part of the gallbladder be separated
from the cystic plate, the flat fibrous surface to which the
nonperitonealized side of the gallbladder is attached. The cystic plate, which is sometimes referred to as the liver bed of the
Disclosure Information: Nothing to disclose.
Received January 29, 2010; Accepted February 26, 2010.
From the Sections of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Correspondence address: Steven M Strasberg, MD, Section of HepatoPancreato-Biliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University in
St Louis, Suite 1160, Northwest Tower, 660 South Euclid Ave, Box 8109, St
Louis, MO 63110. email: [email protected]

2010 by the American College of Surgeons

Published by Elsevier Inc.

132

ISSN 1072-7515/10/$36.00
doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.053

Vol. 211, No. 1, July 2010

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

133

Figure 1. The critical view of safety. The triangle of Calot has been
dissected free of fat and fibrous tissue, however, the common bile
duct has not been displayed. The base of the gallbladder has been
dissected off the cystic plate and the cystic plate can be clearly
seen. Two and only 2 structures enter the gallbladder and these can
be seen circumferentially.

be cleared to be sure that dissection had been carried onto

the cystic plate could differ somewhat from case to case.
The cystic plate, being made of fibrous tissue, usually has a
dull white appearance (Fig. 3B). Occasionally, it is thin and
translucent, allowing the underlying liver to be seen
through it (Fig. 4A). In cases with mild inflammation and
areolar dissection planes, only a centimeter or so of the
cystic plate needs to be cleaned free of gallbladder attachments to ensure that dissection is actually on the fibrous
plate. When there is greater inflammation that distance can
be greater because fibrotic chronically inflamed tissues
within the triangle of Calot can also have the same dull
white color as the cystic plate (see Fig. 4B). The extent of
dissection has to be that which results in the method being
an adequate surrogate to dissecting the gallbladder off the
liver bed entirely. Therefore, distance dissected needs to be
that which makes it obvious that the only step left in the
dissectionif the cystic structures were to be divided
would be removal of the remaining attachments of the
gallbladder to the liver.
Although the Figure that was used to illustrate the technique clearly showed that the bottom of the gallbladder was
freed from the cystic plate (Fig. 1), the rationale was not
explained clearly. Consequently, surgeons might not understand why this is an essential step in the procedure, as
explained here. Sometimes surgeons clear a small area of
the triangle of Calot above the cystic artery as well as the
area between the cystic duct and artery (Fig. 3A) and consider that this fulfills the requirements of the method. It
does not. The making of 2 windows alone does not satisfy
the requirements of CVS. To do so, enough of the gallblad-

Figure 2. Identification of the cystic structures at open cholecystectomy. The gallbladder has been completely dissected off the cystic
plate and 2 and only 2 structures are entering the gallbladder. The
method employs putative identification of the cystic structures in the
triangle of Calot before dissection of the gallbladder off the plate.

der should be taken off the cystic plate so that it is obvious

that the only step left after division of the cystic structures
will be removal of the rest of the gallbladder off the cystic
plate (Fig. 3B). Also, although the common duct does not
have to be seen, all fat and fibrous tissue must be removed
from the triangle of Calot so that there is a 360-degree view
around the cystic duct and artery, ie, the CVS should be
apparent from both the anterior and posterior (reverse
Calot) viewpoints (Fig. 4). The purpose of the grasper in
the picture of the critical view is to precisely indicate that a
360-degree view is required (Fig. 1).
Use of the CVS technique
Standard proceduremild and moderate
inflammation present

The initial steps in performance of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy are similar in most methods. A pneumoperitoneum is created, ports are inserted under direct vision, and
graspers are placed on the gallbladder for retraction. The
next step is to clear the triangle of Calot of fat and fibrous

134

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

J Am Coll Surg

Figure 3. Difference between 2 windows and critical view of safety (CVS). (A) Dissection has led to
the creation of 2 windows, 1 between the cystic duct and artery and 1 between the artery and the liver
(arrows). This dissection does not fulfill the criteria of CVS because the cystic plate cannot be clearly
identified. (B) CVS. Arrow points to whitish clearly identified cystic plate.

tissue. This can be done with a variety of techniques, which

include teasing tissue away with graspers or gauze dissectors, elevating and dividing tissue with hook cautery, and
spreading tissue with blunt or curved dissecting instru-

ments. The dissection is commonly performed from the

front and the back of the triangle of Calot. Two points of
safety for cautery are that it should be used on low power
settings, typically 30 W and that any tissue to be cauter-

Figure 4. Different appearances of the cystic plate. (A) Critical view of safety (CVS) is seen from in
front of the gallbladder as usually shown. The cystic plate is very thin. (B) CVS is seen with the
gallbladder reflected to the left so that a posterior view of the triangle of Calot is shown. The cystic
plate is thicker and whitish. Both views fulfill criteria for CVS.

Vol. 211, No. 1, July 2010

ized should be elevated off surrounding tissue so that there

is no unintentional arcing injury to surrounding structures.
Cautery should be applied in short bursts of 2 to 3 seconds
or less to minimize thermal spread to surrounding structures. Also, it is important that only small pieces of tissue be
divided at one time because important biliary structures
can be quite small in diameter. Using these approaches, it is
usually not difficult to clear the triangle of Calot of fat and
fibrous tissue and take the gallbladder off the bottom of the
cystic plate when mild or moderate inflammation is
present. Once this is done, there will be 2 and only 2
structures attached to the gallbladder and they can be visualized circumferentially. At this point, the CVS has been
achieved and the cystic structures can be divided. If any
doubt exists, as can occur when inflammation is severe,
then more of the gallbladder should be taken off the cystic
plate, including right up to the fundus, if necessary. When
dividing the cystic structures, it is our practice to divide the
artery first because it is usually shorter than the cystic duct
and doing so permits a longer length of cystic duct to
appear. This also facilitates insertion of a catheter in the
cystic duct for performing intraoperative cholangiography.
Of course, both structures must be clipped and divided in
a manner that avoids tenting injury.
Most of the instructions in the literature about the safe
removal of the gallbladder laparoscopically, such as those in
the preceding paragraph, are related to how the dissection is
done. The CVS is not a dissection technique, but rather a
technique of identification. As such, it is related to methods
of safe identification in other aspects of life. For instance,
state hunting regulations stipulate that hunters must see
the head and torso of an animal before firing a shot, as
opposed to shooting after seeing legs only. Pilots identify
runways as opposed to taxiways by blinking approach
lights, white runway lights, and radio beacons. These safeguards are about identification as opposed to the mechanics of hunting or flying. Similarly, it is important for the
surgeon to separate dissection and identification in his or
her mind. Dissection is temporally linear but identification
is temporally static. Dissection reveals the CVS, but affirmation that the CVS has been achieved takes place in a
moment of time when no dissection is going on. Affirmation of the CVS should take place at a pause in the operation and should be treated like a second timeout. The critical view should be demonstrated and ideally the surgeon
and physician assistant, if present, should agree that it is
achieved, just as a pilot and copilot agree on critical points
of identification when flying an airplane. Using these approaches, CVS is usually achievable in standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in single-incision laparoscopic

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

135

Figure 5. Critical view of safety (CVS) obtained a single-incision

laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although the view is rotated counterclockwise from usual, all the criteria of CVS are present.

cholecystectomy11 (Fig. 5), and in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic cholecystectomy.8

CVS in severe inflammation

The preceding was a description of use of the critical view

in the straightforward cholecystectomy in which there is
minimal or moderate inflammation and even when aberrant ducts are present. In the latter case, ducts can be found
to cross the triangle of Calot and even unite with the cystic
duct, but they will not enter the gallbladder and their presence does not interfere with attaining CVS. However, circumstances can be very different when there is severe inflammation. (Although there are rare descriptions of right
hepatic ducts directly entering the gallbladder, this is probably not a result of an anomaly of this type but rather an
effacement of the cystic duct by a large stone [as in Mirizzi
syndrome] under conditions in which the cystic duct terminates in a low-lying right hepatic duct. In all such cases,
there will be severe chronic inflammation. Developmentally, it is extremely unlikely that the right hepatic ductal
system could bud off the side of the gallbladder. The preceding does not refer to the accessory ducts of Lutschka,
which are minute nonessential ducts that pass through the

136

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

J Am Coll Surg

view of a funnel-shaped structure resembling the union of

cystic duct and gallbladder can be obtained12 (Fig. 6). As
this funnel shape is the requirement for identification by
this method (infundibulum funnel), the common bile
duct will often be clipped and divided.12 The common bile
duct can be similarly dissected in error when using the
critical view technique, but it will not be divided at this
point because the other conditions for the CVS have not
been met. The cystic artery has not been identified, the
triangle of Calot has not been completely cleared, and
the base of the cystic plate has not been displayed. Under
the same inflammatory conditions that lead to biliary injury in the infundibular view technique, the surgeon using
the CVS will have difficulty proceeding after isolation of
the common bile duct. This is actually desirable and should
suggest that there is a problem. It is important that the
surgeon recognizes when this step in the operation becomes
very difficult because it suggests there is a problem and
additional attempts to attain CVS laparoscopically should
be halted. Options include intraoperative cholangiography, conversion to open cholecystectomy, or soliciting the
help of a colleague. Stated otherwise, the critical view
method is superior to the infundibular technique under
conditions of severe inflammation because it is more rigorous. The patient is protected precisely because the surgeon
cannot usually achieve a misleading view. However, although CVS will usually protect against making incorrect
identification, it will not protect against direct injury to
structures by persistent dissection in the face of highly adverse local conditions.
Figure 6. The infundibular view technique of ductal identification.
The putative cystic duct (CD) been dissected circumferentially to the
edge of the gallbladder, obtaining the funnel-shaped view shown in
the lower left diagram. Unfortunately, sometimes the same appearance can be given when the common bile duct (CBD) is dissected,
especially when severe inflammation is present and the common
hepatic duct adheres to the side of the gallbladder and the cystic
duct is hidden (lower right diagram).

cystic plate to communicate between the gallbladder lumen and intrahepatic ducts.)
Surgeons are more likely to dissect the common bile duct
circumferentially and believe it is the cystic duct in the
presence of severe acute and chronic inflammation.12 This
occurs because certain factors present under these circumstances tend to hide the cystic duct and fuse the common
hepatic duct to the side of the gallbladder.12,13 It is clear
from operative notes that such circumstances can result in
a compelling deception that the common duct is the cystic
duct. The result in many cases has been bile duct injury.12 If
the surgeon is using a method, such as the infundibular
view technique (Fig. 6), and has come around the common
bile duct thinking that it is the cystic duct, a 360-degree

Photo documentation of CVS

Photo documentation of CVS has been recommended by

Heistermann and colleagues6 and by the Dutch Society of
Surgery,14 although the optimal method for documentation has not been systematically studied. This recommendation might gain support especially as newer methods of
cholecystectomy, such as single-incision cholecystectomy,
natural orifice translumenal endoscopic cholecystectomy,8
and robotic cholecystectomy are introduced. Photo documentation might be achieved by still photos or by short
video. Still photographs have the advantage of being readily
printable and could be added to the patients chart.15 The
photographs are also immediately available for review and
are easier to store than video. However, in evaluating
whether CVS has been achieved, surgeons frequently move
the lower end of the gallbladder to scan the triangle of
Calot from in front and from behind. As a result, a short
video of 20 to 30 seconds, as shown in the video clip of
CVS (available online) can more accurately replicate what
the surgeon is viewing for documentation purposes. Anecdotal experience from our group suggests that for single-

Vol. 211, No. 1, July 2010

incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a video segment can

be superior to still photographs because of the ability to
examine both sides of the hepatocystic triangle.
Evidence that CVS prevents biliary injuries

Yegiyants and colleagues reported on 3,042 patients who

had laparoscopic cholecystectomy using CVS for identification in the period 20022006.7 The study was limited
because data were obtained from an administrative database and CVS was not used in all laparoscopic cholecystectomies. One bile duct injury occurred in an 80-year-old
patient with severe inflammation. The injury occurred during dissection before the CVS was achieved, ie, none of
3,042 patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy had an
injury because of misidentification. The expected rate of
injury was between 2 and 4 per 1,000 cholecystectomies
and most would be expected to result from misidentification. The actual rate of injury was much lower than the
expected rate.7
Avgerinos and colleagues reported on 1,046 patients having
laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a single institution from
20022007.5 In 998 cases CVS was used. The conversion
rate was 2.7%. There were 5 bile leaks, which resolved spontaneously. No major bile duct injuries occurred.5
Heistermann and colleagues reported on 100 patients
who had laparoscopic cholecystectomy using CVS.6 The
purpose of the study was to determine how often it was
possible to attain CVS and demonstrate it with photo documentation. Despite a high incidence of acute cholecystitis
and prior abdominal surgery, 97 of 100 cholecystectomies
were completed laparoscopically after achieving photo documentation of CVS. There was 1 postoperative cystic duct
stump leak.6
Wauben and colleagues reported on use of ductal identification techniques in The Netherlands, including CVS.16
In this survey, it was found that Dutch surgeons used a
variety of techniques for ductal identification, but few surgeons used CVS. Subsequently, the Dutch Society of Surgery established a commission to study the problem of
biliary injury in that country. The commission developed
best practice guidelines for performing cholecystectomy
and adopted CVS as the standard method of performing
ductal identification.14 Photo documentation of CVS before division of the cystic duct was recommended in these
guidelines.14 At this time, all Dutch surgeons performing
laparoscopic cholecystectomy are expected to follow the
guidelines. As yet, there is no published information regarding whether this policy has been successfully implemented or whether it has affected the incidence of bile duct
injury in The Netherlands.
In summary, there is no Level I evidence that CVS reduces bile duct injury. To prove this claim would require a

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

137

randomized trial. The difficulty in performing such a trial

can be illustrated as follows: even if there was a 4-fold
increase in the incidence of biliary injury from 0.1% to
0.4% as a result of introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it would be difficult to detect because a randomized trial would require 4,500 patients per arm to detect
that difference at a 95% confidence level. The logistics and
cost of performing a surgical trial of this magnitude are
overwhelming. Probably the best that can be achieved is the
all or none Level I type of evidence, in which it is shown
that biliary injuries resulting from misidentification do not
occur when a particular technique is used; from a practical
perspective, that would be sufficient. The case series of
Yegiyants and colleagues7 and Avgerinos and colleagues5
approach that standard. The results of the Dutch best practices initiative will be of great interest and might provide
additional support for CVS if the policy is implemented
successfully and if it results in a reduction in biliary injuries
in The Netherlands.
Author Contributions

Study conception and design: Strasberg

Acquisition of data: Strasberg, Brunt
Analysis and interpretation of data: Strasberg, Brunt
Drafting of manuscript: Strasberg
Critical revision: Strasberg, Brunt

REFERENCES
1. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 1991;324:
10731078.
2. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of
biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy [see comments]. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:101125.
3. Davidoff AM, Pappas TN, Murray EA, et al. Mechanisms of
major biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann
Surg 1992;215:196202.
4. Strasberg SM, Sanabria JR, Clavien PA. Complications of
laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Surg 1992;35:275280.
5. Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z, et al. One thousand laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a single surgical unit using the critical view of safety technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:498
503.
6. Heistermann HP, Tobusch A, Palmes D. [Prevention of bile duct
injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The critical view of
safety]. Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 2006;131:460465.
7. Yegiyants S, Collins JC, Yegiyants S, Collins JC. Operative strategy can reduce the incidence of major bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 2008;74:985-957.
8. Auyang ED, Hungness ES, Vaziri K, et al. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): dissection for the critical
view of safety during transcolonic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc
2009;23:11171118.
9. Couinaud C. The vasculo-biliary sheaths. In: Couinaud C, ed.
Surgical anatomy of the liver revisited. Paris; 1989:2939.

138

Strasberg and Brunt

Critical View of Safety

10. Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. Isolation of right

main and right sectional portal pedicles for liver resection without hepatotomy or inflow occlusion. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:
390396.
11. Hodgett SE, Matthews BD, Strasberg SM, Brunt LM. Single
incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): initial experience
with critical view dissection and routine intraoperative cholangiography. Surg Endosc 2009;23:S332.
12. Strasberg SM, Eagon CJ, Drebin JA. The hidden cystic duct
syndrome and the infundibular technique of laparoscopic
cholecystectomythe danger of the false infundibulum. J Am
Coll Surg 2000;191:661667.

J Am Coll Surg

13. Strasberg SM, Strasberg SM. Error traps and vasculo-biliary injury
in laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. J Hepato-BiliaryPancreatic Surg 2008;15:284292.
14. Gallstone disease (Galsteenziekte) 2007. Dutch Society of Surgery.
Available at: http://nvvh.artsennet.nl/richtlijnen/Bestaanderichtlijnen.htm [in Dutch]. Accessed January 27, 2010.
15. Plasier PW, Pauwels MMA, Lange JF. Quality control in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operation notes, video or photo
print. HPB (Oxford) 2001;3:197199.
16. Wauben LS, Goossens RH, van Eijk DJ, et al. Evaluation of
protocol uniformity concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy
in the Netherlands. World J Surg 2008;32:613620.