Surgical endoscopy · 2025
Minimally invasive vs. open radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: 30-day NSQIP outcomes analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hale Joshua, Landrum Kelsey R, Agala Chris, Vidri Roberto A, Gleeson Elizabeth, LeCompte Michael T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Radical cholecystectomy (RC) is the standard procedure for gallbladder cancer (GBC) tumors stage TIb or higher. Advances in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) offer the potential for improved outcomes compared to the traditional open surgery. While small series have demonstrated the feasibility of an MIS approach, a detailed comparison of outcomes between the two approaches is lacking.
METHODS: The National Surgeon Quality Improvement Database (2010-2021) was queried to identify patients undergoing RC for GBC. Patients with T1b or higher disease were included. Thirty-day all-cause mortality and morbidity were evaluated. To assess associations between outcomes and covariates, we estimated risk ratios and risk differences using generalized linear models and adjusted the estimates using inverse propensity of treatment weights.
RESULTS: 1303 patients were identified (239 MIS, 1064 Open) with 178 excluded due to the need for biliary reconstruction. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of mortality or major morbidity between the groups with four deaths occurring overall and major morbidity rates of MIS = 2.26% and Open = 2.45% (p = 0.7924). Patients who underwent MIS had significantly fewer days in the hospital (3.00 vs.5.00, p < 0.001). After weighting, the MIS group had significantly fewer blood transfusions (2.12% vs. 6.73%, p = 0.009) and superficial surgical site infections (0.45% vs. 3.29%, p = 0.020).
CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting MIS for RC as a potential alternative to open resections.
METHODS: The National Surgeon Quality Improvement Database (2010-2021) was queried to identify patients undergoing RC for GBC. Patients with T1b or higher disease were included. Thirty-day all-cause mortality and morbidity were evaluated. To assess associations between outcomes and covariates, we estimated risk ratios and risk differences using generalized linear models and adjusted the estimates using inverse propensity of treatment weights.
RESULTS: 1303 patients were identified (239 MIS, 1064 Open) with 178 excluded due to the need for biliary reconstruction. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of mortality or major morbidity between the groups with four deaths occurring overall and major morbidity rates of MIS = 2.26% and Open = 2.45% (p = 0.7924). Patients who underwent MIS had significantly fewer days in the hospital (3.00 vs.5.00, p < 0.001). After weighting, the MIS group had significantly fewer blood transfusions (2.12% vs. 6.73%, p = 0.009) and superficial surgical site infections (0.45% vs. 3.29%, p = 0.020).
CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting MIS for RC as a potential alternative to open resections.