4.6 Article

The diagnostic value of staging laparoscopy in gallbladder cancer: a nationwide cohort study

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02880-z

关键词

Gallbladder neoplasms; Gallbladder carcinoma; Staging laparoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For patients with gallbladder cancer, disseminated disease is often found during (re-)exploration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of staging laparoscopy and identify predictive factors for disseminated disease. The results showed that staging laparoscopy can identify disseminated disease in some cases, and cholecystitis and primary R1/R2 resection are independent factors predicting disseminated disease.
BackgroundDisseminated disease (DD) is often found at (re-)exploration in gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients. We aimed to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy (SL) and identify predictors for DD.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients from all Dutch academic centres with primary GBC (pGBC) and incidentally diagnosed GBC (iGBC) planned for (re-)resection. The yield of SL was determined. In iGBC, predictive factors for DD were assessed.ResultsIn total, 290 patients were included. Of 183 included pGBC patients, 143 underwent laparotomy without SL, and 42 (29%) showed DD perioperatively. SL, conducted in 40 patients, identified DD in eight. DD was found in nine of 32 patients who underwent laparotomy after SL.Of 107 included iGBC patients, 100 underwent laparotomy without SL, and 19 showed DD perioperatively. SL, conducted in seven patients, identified DD in one. Cholecystitis (OR = 4.25; 95% CI 1.51-11.91) and primary R1/R2 resection (OR = 3.94; 95% CI 1.39-11.19) were independent predictive factors for DD.ConclusionsIn pGBC patients, SL may identify DD in up to 20% of patients and should be part of standard management. In iGBC patients, SL is indicated after primary resection for cholecystitis and after initial R1/R2 resection due to the association of these factors with DD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据