Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder carcinoma

  • Published:
Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery

Abstract.

Laparoscopic surgery has replaced conventional open cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. A major concern is how to handle gallbladder cancer in the laparoscopic era, since there are numerous case reports of port site metastases from gallbladder cancer after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There are also many experimental studies favoring the opinion that the laparoscopic technique implies a higher risk of spreading malignant disease. This opinion has gained wide acceptance despite little previous clinical effort to determine the risk of tumor dissemination and the lack of comparisons between open and laparoscopic surgery. This report is a short summary of our own studies and present knowledge with special respect to the clinical aspects of the development and incidence of abdominal wall metastases. Among 270 patients with verified gallbladder carcinoma in whom 210 had open surgery and 60 a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 12 patients (6.5%) in the open cholecystectomy group and 9 (15%) in the laparoscopic group developed incisional metastases. Although the sparse clinical documentation does not unavoidably mean that laparoscopic cholecystectomy has an increased risk of disseminating tumor cells, we recommend open surgery in cases of known or suspected gallbladder carcinoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: January 9, 2001 / Accepted: August 1, 2001

About this article

Cite this article

Lundberg, O., Kristoffersson, A. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder carcinoma. J Hep Bil Pancr Surg 8, 525–529 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s005340100020

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s005340100020

Navigation