BACKGROUND: The use of the laparoscopic approach (LC) for gallbladder carcinoma and incidental gallbladder carcinomas (IGBC) remains controversial. However, recent studies suggest that LC has no adverse effects relative to the open approach. A definitive conclusion regarding the safety of LC that is based on data from a large patient cohort is needed. METHODS: To draw a definite conclusion about the safety of LC in IGBC, data from the 837 patients with IGBC [registered in the German Registry (GR)] were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 837 patients, 492 underwent LC, 200 underwent open surgery (OC), and 142 initially underwent LC, but the approach was converted to OC. The 5-year survival rates of the three groups indicated that LC was associated with significantly better survival. LC was not associated with a poorer prognosis in patients with T1, T2, or T3 stage disease or in patients who underwent immediate radical re-resection (IRR; n = 330). LC was associated with a significant survival benefit in the 490 patients who did not undergo IRR. LC was comparable with OC in terms of overall recurrence rates and the rate of accidental intraoperative perforation. CONCLUSIONS: The GR data, which relate to a large homogenous patient cohort, showed that when other potential influencing factors, e.g., IRR were eliminated, the primary access technique had no effect on prognosis. Stage-adjusted therapy should always be performed irrespective of the primary access technique.
BACKGROUND: The use of the laparoscopic approach (LC) for gallbladder carcinoma and incidental gallbladder carcinomas (IGBC) remains controversial. However, recent studies suggest that LC has no adverse effects relative to the open approach. A definitive conclusion regarding the safety of LC that is based on data from a large patient cohort is needed. METHODS: To draw a definite conclusion about the safety of LC in IGBC, data from the 837 patients with IGBC [registered in the German Registry (GR)] were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 837 patients, 492 underwent LC, 200 underwent open surgery (OC), and 142 initially underwent LC, but the approach was converted to OC. The 5-year survival rates of the three groups indicated that LC was associated with significantly better survival. LC was not associated with a poorer prognosis in patients with T1, T2, or T3 stage disease or in patients who underwent immediate radical re-resection (IRR; n = 330). LC was associated with a significant survival benefit in the 490 patients who did not undergo IRR. LC was comparable with OC in terms of overall recurrence rates and the rate of accidental intraoperative perforation. CONCLUSIONS: The GR data, which relate to a large homogenous patient cohort, showed that when other potential influencing factors, e.g., IRR were eliminated, the primary access technique had no effect on prognosis. Stage-adjusted therapy should always be performed irrespective of the primary access technique.