No abstract

No abstract

The role of laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy (LRC) in the surgical management of T2 gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is still controversial. The medical records of patients with T2 GBC treated with radical cholecystectomy were retrospectively reviewed. In this study, we compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, using propensity score matching analysis, of patients with T2 GBC who underwent LRC and open radical cholecystectomy (ORC). Among 183 patients, 86 were selected by propensity score matching (LRC = 43 and ORC = 43). The ORC group underwent more extensive surgery (liver resections and extended lymph node dissections [ELND]) than the LRC group. The LRC group had less operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer complications, and had the earlier start of adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of 5-year overall survival rate (64.6% vs 80.4%, P = .214) and disease-free survival rate (77.1% vs 82.2%, P = .641). A subgroup analyses showed that liver resection and ELND had no survival advantage compared to no liver resection and regional lymph node dissection, respectively. Our LRC approach is safe and effective, with long-term survival comparable to that of ORC.

Background: Lymph node (LN) metastasis portends a worse prognosis following resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC); however, lymphadenectomy is not routinely performed, as its role remains controversial. Herein, we developed a risk model for LN metastasis by identifying its predictive factors and assessed a subset of patients who might not benefit from LN dissection (LND).Methods: 210 patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for ICC were retrospectively reviewed. A preoperative risk model for LN metastasis was developed following identification of its preoperative predictive factors using the recursive partitioning method.Results: In the multivariable analysis, CA 19-9 level of >120 U/mL, an enlarged LN on computed tomography, and a tumor location abutting the Glissonean pedicles were independent predictors of LN metastasis. The preoperative risk model classified the patients according to their risk: high, intermediate, and low risks at a rate of LN metastasis on final pathology of 60.9%, 35%, and 2.3%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis among the low-risk patients, performance of LND had no survival advantage over non-performance of LND. Conclusion: Routine LND for preoperatively diagnosed ICC should be recommended to patients at an intermediate and a high risk of developing LN metastasis but may be omitted for low-risk patients.

Because of today's advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative management skills, surgeons are beginning to explore the usefulness of the laparoscopic approach in managing periampullary tumors. However, as a result of its innate complexity and associated high surgery‐related complications, its applicability to the general surgical community remains controversial. To date, only retrospective data from high‐volume centers support the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (Lap PD) for the treatment of benign conditions and malignant periampullary tumors. In addition, various surgical techniques in terms of port placement, dissection, and reconstruction have evolved in different centers depending on the preferred method commonly used by the surgeon through accumulated experience. In our center, we used a stepwise approach and standardized our surgical technique to overcome this technically demanding procedure. A collaborative implementation of video review and analysis, practice training and simulation, operating room didactics, and strict adherence to our stepwise approach in Lap PD, might potentially improve the surgical skills of young hepatobiliary surgeons and possibly overcome the volume‐based learning curve of Lap PD.