Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly being used in gallbladder cancer (GBC) for radical tumour extirpation. However, there are conflicting results on the morbidity outcomes following MIS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing radical surgery for GBC between MIS and open surgery.

Studies comparing MIS (laparoscopic, robotic or both techniques) to open surgery were included. The databases of MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched from 2001 till March 2025. The primary end point was post-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary end points were hospital stay, blood loss, operative time and R1 resection rates. Random effect models were used for analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Thirty-two studies (laparoscopic [n = 19], robotic [n = 6] or both [n = 7]) involving 8568 (MIS = 3287 and open = 5281) patients were included. For overall and major morbidity (Clavian-Dindo >/ = III), the odds ratio (OR) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.46-0.78) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-1.0) respectively was obtained, favouring the MIS approach. Similarly, MIS showed lower odds for mortality [OR:0.62 (95% CI: 0.40-0.95)] compared to open surgery. MIS was associated with shorter hospital stay (less by mean of 3 days) and lesser blood loss (less by mean of 115 ml) but longer operative time (higher by mean of 5.8 min) and higher R1 resection rates (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71). Oncological outcomes, however, were comparable. The certainty of evidence was very low to low across the studies.

MIS for GBC was associated with relatively lower post operative morbidity and mortality with similar oncological outcomes but with a small but heightened risk of margin positive (R1) resection, especially in primary GBC. The certainty of evidence was very low to low across the included studies. Future prospective studies are needed to overcome the clinical heterogeneity and possible selection bias.