Laparoscopic versus open radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma / 中华肝胆外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the treatment outcomes between laparoscopic versus open radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA).Methods:From January 2017 to January 2020, the clinical data of 34 patients who underwent radical resection for HCCA were retrospectively collected and analyzed. These patients were divided into the laparotomy group ( n=17) and the laparoscopic group ( n=17) based on the operation they received. Clinical data including perioperative outcomes, oral re-intake time, first out-of-bed activity time, drainage tube removal time, postoperative hospital stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were compared between groups. Results:Of 34 patients who underwent radical for HCCA in the study, there were 16 males and 18 females, aged (64.3±1.7) years. The mean operation time of the laparotomy group was significantly less than those in the laparoscopic group [(436.2±33.4) vs (522.1±24.0) min, P<0.05]. The 2 groups showed comparable results in extent of operation, intraoperative bleeding, incidences of portal vein reconstruction, yields of lymph nodes, and tumor diameter. The laparoscopic group showed advantage trends over the laparotomy group in incidences oral re-intake time [(4.7±0.3) vs (4.6±0.3) days], first out-of-bed activity time [(2.9±0.4) vs (2.2±0.3) days], drainage tube removal time [(12.7±1.3) vs (11.1±1.0) days] and postoperative hospital stay [(18.3±1.7) vs (15.8±1.3) days], but the differences failed to reach statistical significance ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic radical resection of HCCA in properly selected patients, was safe and feasible. There were comparable clinical outcomes.