4.4 Review

Management and diagnosis of gallbladder polyps: a systematic review

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 400, Issue 4, Pages 455-462

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-015-1302-2

Keywords

Gallbladder polyps; Systematic review; Gallbladder polyp management

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recommendation for management of gallbladder polyps (GBPs) > 1 cm is cholecystectomy. No consensus exists on management of GBPs < 1 cm. This systematic review examines current evidence on management of GBPs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched from January 1991 to June 2013 using specified terms. A predefined protocol for data extraction was used to retrieve specified end points. Literature search yielded 43 manuscripts with a dataset of 11,685 patients with GBPs. M:F ratio was 1.3:1. Average age (range) was 49 years (32-83). Patients with malignant GBPs had an average (range) age of 58 (50-66) years with M:F ratio of 0.78:1. Cholesterol polyps constituted 60.5 % of GBPs followed by adenomas (15.2 %) and cancer (11.6 %). Malignant GBPs a parts per thousand yen1 cm, < 1 cm and < 5 mm constituted 8.5, 1.2 and 0 % of GBPs, respectively. Majority of patients requiring surgical intervention had laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Presently employed policy of cholecystectomy for GBPs > 1 cm is appropriate. For GBPs < 1 cm, the authors propose (accepting existence of differing proposals) the following: 1. Surveillance may not be needed for GBPs < 5 mm. 2. For GBPs between 5 and 10 mm, two scans at six monthly intervals is suggested and after that, tailor surveillance to age, growth and ethnicity. In the non-Asian population, if GBP remains the same size or number, discontinuation of surveillance may be considered. In the Asian population, if GBPs remain the same, yearly surveillance is continued for a suggested period of 3 years. 3. Discontinue surveillance if GBPs is/are smaller/ disappeared. Cholecystectomy is advised where size increases to > 10 mm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available