Laparoscopic versus open surgery in treating patients with gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Concerns over the security of laparoscopic radical operation for gallbladder cancer (GBC) persist. This systematic review and meta-analysis attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) in the treatment of GBC. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 18, 2022. Literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate. Effect-size estimates expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived under the random-effects model. Results: A total of 27 independent studies including 2,868 participants were meta-analyzed. Significance was noted for intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -117.194, 95% CI: -170.188 to 64.201, P<0.001), harvested lymph nodes (WMD: -1.023, 95% CI: -1.776 to -0.269, P=0.008), postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.555, 95% CI: -4.509 to -2.601, P<0.001), postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.596, 95% CI: 0.407 to 0.871, P=0.008), overall survival rate at 2-year (OR: 1.524, 95% CI: 1.143 to 2.031, P=0.004), T2 survival at 1-year (OR: 1.799, 95% CI: 1.777 to 2.749, P<0.01) and 2-year (OR: 2.026, 95% CI: 1.392 to 2.949, P<0.001), as well as T3 survival at 1-year (OR: 2.669, 95% CI: 1.564 to 4.555, P<0.001) and 2-year (OR: 2.300, 95% CI: 1.308 to 4.046, P=0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed that ethnicity, incidental GBC, sample size, and follow-up period were possible sources of heterogeneity. There was a low probability of publication bias for all outcomes except postoperative morbidity. Conclusions: Our findings indicated that LS statistically had better 2-year survival rates, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization times, and lower rates of complications than OS. However, the superiority and even the safety of LS still remain an open question due to the impact of incidental GBC, unaccounted heterogeneity, publication bias, lymph node dissection, and port-site metastasis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.