Cargando…

Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer

Background. For Tis and T1a gallbladder cancer (GbC), laparoscopic cholecystectomy can provide similar survival outcomes compared to open cholecystectomy. However, for patients affected by resectable T1b or more advanced GbC, open approach radical cholecystectomy (RC), consisting in gallbladder live...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zimmitti, Giuseppe, Manzoni, Alberto, Guerini, Francesca, Ramera, Marco, Bertocchi, Paola, Aroldi, Francesca, Zaniboni, Alberto, Rosso, Edoardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27885325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7684915
_version_ 1782467975153975296
author Zimmitti, Giuseppe
Manzoni, Alberto
Guerini, Francesca
Ramera, Marco
Bertocchi, Paola
Aroldi, Francesca
Zaniboni, Alberto
Rosso, Edoardo
author_facet Zimmitti, Giuseppe
Manzoni, Alberto
Guerini, Francesca
Ramera, Marco
Bertocchi, Paola
Aroldi, Francesca
Zaniboni, Alberto
Rosso, Edoardo
author_sort Zimmitti, Giuseppe
collection PubMed
description Background. For Tis and T1a gallbladder cancer (GbC), laparoscopic cholecystectomy can provide similar survival outcomes compared to open cholecystectomy. However, for patients affected by resectable T1b or more advanced GbC, open approach radical cholecystectomy (RC), consisting in gallbladder liver bed resection or segment 4b-5 bisegmentectomy, with locoregional lymphadenectomy, is considered the gold standard while minimally invasive RC (MiRC) is skeptically considered. Aim. To analyze current literature on perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MiRC for patients affected by GbC. Methods. A Medline review of published articles until June 2016 concerning MiRC for GbC was performed. Results. Data relevant for this review were presented in 13 articles, including 152 patients undergoing an attempt of MiRC for GbC. No randomized clinical trial was found. The approach was laparoscopic in 147 patients and robotic in five. Conversion was required in 15 (10%) patients. Postoperative complications rate was 10% with no mortality. Long-term survival outcomes were reported by 11 studies, two of them showing similar oncologic results when comparing MiRC with matched open RC. Conclusions. Although randomized clinical trials are still lacking and only descriptive studies reporting on limited number of patients are available, current literature seems suggesting that when performed at highly specialized centers, MiRC for GbC is safe and feasible and has oncologic outcomes comparable to open RC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5112328
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51123282016-11-24 Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer Zimmitti, Giuseppe Manzoni, Alberto Guerini, Francesca Ramera, Marco Bertocchi, Paola Aroldi, Francesca Zaniboni, Alberto Rosso, Edoardo Gastroenterol Res Pract Review Article Background. For Tis and T1a gallbladder cancer (GbC), laparoscopic cholecystectomy can provide similar survival outcomes compared to open cholecystectomy. However, for patients affected by resectable T1b or more advanced GbC, open approach radical cholecystectomy (RC), consisting in gallbladder liver bed resection or segment 4b-5 bisegmentectomy, with locoregional lymphadenectomy, is considered the gold standard while minimally invasive RC (MiRC) is skeptically considered. Aim. To analyze current literature on perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MiRC for patients affected by GbC. Methods. A Medline review of published articles until June 2016 concerning MiRC for GbC was performed. Results. Data relevant for this review were presented in 13 articles, including 152 patients undergoing an attempt of MiRC for GbC. No randomized clinical trial was found. The approach was laparoscopic in 147 patients and robotic in five. Conversion was required in 15 (10%) patients. Postoperative complications rate was 10% with no mortality. Long-term survival outcomes were reported by 11 studies, two of them showing similar oncologic results when comparing MiRC with matched open RC. Conclusions. Although randomized clinical trials are still lacking and only descriptive studies reporting on limited number of patients are available, current literature seems suggesting that when performed at highly specialized centers, MiRC for GbC is safe and feasible and has oncologic outcomes comparable to open RC. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5112328/ /pubmed/27885325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7684915 Text en Copyright © 2016 Giuseppe Zimmitti et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Zimmitti, Giuseppe
Manzoni, Alberto
Guerini, Francesca
Ramera, Marco
Bertocchi, Paola
Aroldi, Francesca
Zaniboni, Alberto
Rosso, Edoardo
Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title_full Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title_fullStr Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title_short Current Role of Minimally Invasive Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer
title_sort current role of minimally invasive radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27885325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7684915
work_keys_str_mv AT zimmittigiuseppe currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT manzonialberto currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT guerinifrancesca currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT rameramarco currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT bertocchipaola currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT aroldifrancesca currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT zanibonialberto currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer
AT rossoedoardo currentroleofminimallyinvasiveradicalcholecystectomyforgallbladdercancer