4.5 Article

The utility of laparoscopic assessment in the preoperative staging of suspected hilar cholanglocarcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 476-480

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.10.009

Keywords

laparoscopy; biliary malignancy; laparoscopic ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to review the role of laparoscopic assessment in the staging algorithm of suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma and to identify factors highly likely to be associated with unresectable disease. Data prospectively collected between 1992 and 2003 were analyzed. Demographics, symptoms, preoperative radiologic staging, laparoscopic assessment, and final outcome were recorded. Yield was defined as the number of unresectable patients detected by laparoscopic assessment divided by the total number of patients undergoing laparoscopic assessment. Accuracy was defined as the number of unresectable patients detected by laparoscopic assessment divided by the total number of unresectable cases. Eighty-four patients underwent laparoscopic assessment for suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma, of which 20 (23.8%) underwent resection. The yield from laparoscopy a lone was 24.3% (20 of 82), which increased to 41.5% (35 of 82) with the addition of intraoperative ultrasound. The overall accuracy was 53.1% (35 of 66). The use of a preoperative radiologic staging system predicted the likelihood of unresectable disease (P = 0.007). The use of laparoscopic assessment in the preoperative staging of patients with suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma is justified given it will spare 42.2% of patients an unnecessary laparotomy. Accurate staging of cholangiocarcinoma remains a challenge, but the use of a preoperative radiologic staging system may help to stratify a patient's risk of unresectable disease. (c) 2005 The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available