• J. Surg. Res. · Feb 2019

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Approach in Treating Gallbladder Cancer.

    • Jia-Wei Feng, Xing-Hai Yang, Chi-Wen Liu, Bao-Qiang Wu, Dong-Lin Sun, Xue-Min Chen, Yong Jiang, and Zhen Qu.
    • Changzhou First People's Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
    • J. Surg. Res. 2019 Feb 1; 234: 269-276.

    BackgroundPreliminary study on the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and radical cholecystectomy in stage Tis-T3 gallbladder cancer (GBC).MethodsRetrospective analysis of the clinical data of 102 patients with GBC from August 2008 to August 2017 in the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. The clinical and pathological data of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery were compared.ResultsOf 102 patients with GBC, 41 underwent laparoscopic treatment, 12 of whom underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and the others underwent laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy/extended radical cholecystectomy. Sixty-one patients underwent radical cholecystectomy/extended radical cholecystectomy. Based on the individual patient's condition, excision of the extrahepatic biliary tract and cholangioenterostomy were performed. There were no perioperative deaths. There was no significant difference in the operative blood loss (P = 0.732), operative time (P = 0.058), postoperative complications (P = 0.933), R0 margins (P = 0.679), and tumor-related death (P = 0.396) between the laparoscopic group and the laparotomy group. The postoperative activity time (P < 0.001), postoperative eating time (P < 0.001), drainage tube removal time (P < 0.001), and postoperative hospital discharge time (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group were all earlier than those in the laparotomy group, and the difference was statistically significant. The number of lymph nodes resected in the laparoscopic group and the laparotomy group was 1-17, average (5 ± 3) and 1-13 average (5 ± 3), respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.973). The 1-, 3-, and 5-y survival rates in the laparoscopic group were 97.1%, 69.4%, and 51.9%, respectively, and those in the laparotomy group were 94.7%, 64.9%, and 55.7%, respectively; there were no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.453). In terms of different pathologic T stages, the 5-y survival rates of patients with stage Tis (9 cases), T1a (2 cases), T1b (8 cases), T2 (14 cases), and T3 (8 cases) disease in the laparoscopic group were 100%, 100%, 75%, 48.1%, and 12.5%, respectively, and the 5-y survival rates in patients with stage Tis (4 cases), T1b (9 cases), T2 (32 cases), and T3 (16 cases) disease in the laparotomy group were 100%, 87.5%, 64.7%, and 16%, respectively; there were no significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionsLaparoscopic treatment of stage Tis-T3 GBC is feasible. Laparoscopic treatment of GBC does not increase the incision metastasis rate on the basis of the intact gallbladder wall. The same survival rates can be achieved with laparoscopic treatment as with open treatment of GBC. In terms of postoperative rehabilitation, laparoscopic treatment has more advantages.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.