Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study on short-term and long-term outcomes

Background Laparoscopic surgery (LS) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCa) remains under development, and its feasibility and safety remain controversial. This study therefore evaluated the outcomes of this technique and compared them to those of open surgery (OS). Methods In total, 149 patients underwent surgical resection for HCCa at our center between February 2017 and September 2020. After screening and propensity score matching, 47 OS group patients and 20 LS group patients remained, and their baseline characteristics, pathologic findings, surgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were compared. Result The baseline characteristics and pathologic findings were comparable between the two groups. The mean incision length was longer in the OS group than in the LS group (21.0 cm vs. 13.2 cm, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the other surgical outcomes between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, the overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate of the OS group were significantly higher than those of the LS group (P = 0.0057, P = 0.043). However, the two groups had significantly different follow-up times (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months, P = 0.041). Conclusion LS for HCCa is technically achievable, and our study revealed that it is equivalent to OS in terms of short-term outcomes but was poorer in terms of long-term outcomes.

Automated summary

Laparoscopic surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma is technically achievable and equivalent to open surgery in short-term outcomes, but poorer in long-term outcomes.