Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a large international multicenter experience.


Journal

Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2021
Historique:
received: 29 11 2019
accepted: 17 04 2020
pubmed: 25 4 2020
medline: 3 7 2021
entrez: 25 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The aim of the study was to describe the surgical outcomes of a retrospective series of consecutive patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic approach for adrenal masses in two tertiary referral centers. We retrospectively gathered data of 477 patients submitted to adrenalectomy performed at two Institutions from March 2008 to February 2018 by six highly experienced surgeons. We excluded from the analysis 43 patients that had an open approach for tumors or for anesthetic contraindications to minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Patients were selected for surgery after a radiologic and an endocrinology work up. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were recorded. Overall, 477 patients were included in the study. The robotic and the laparoscopic group included 110 and 367 patients, respectively. The preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups except for ASA score with a median (IQR) of 3 and 2 in the robotic and in the laparoscopic group, respectively (p = 0.03). Tumor size of adrenal tumors treated robotically (4, IQR 2.6-6 cm) was significantly larger than those treated laparoscopically (3, IQR 2.3-4.1 cm) (p = 0.01). The intraoperative complication rates were similar between robotic and laparoscopic groups (6.3% and 6%, respectively). The postoperative complication rate was 5.4% for robotic group and similarly 3.5% for laparoscopic adrenalectomy strategy. We analyzed the tumor ≥ 6 cm, with 29 patients in the robotic group and 43 in the laparoscopic one, with an overall complication rate of 19.5%. At multivariable analyses tumor size (OR 1.287; CI 1.128-1.468; p < 0.001) was the only independent predictor of overall complication. Adrenal tumors can be safely treated either by robotic or laparoscopic strategy. MIS seems to be feasible also in larger adrenal masses (≥ 6 cm). Tumor size represents the only predictive factors for overall complication.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to describe the surgical outcomes of a retrospective series of consecutive patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic approach for adrenal masses in two tertiary referral centers.
METHODS
We retrospectively gathered data of 477 patients submitted to adrenalectomy performed at two Institutions from March 2008 to February 2018 by six highly experienced surgeons. We excluded from the analysis 43 patients that had an open approach for tumors or for anesthetic contraindications to minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Patients were selected for surgery after a radiologic and an endocrinology work up. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were recorded.
RESULTS
Overall, 477 patients were included in the study. The robotic and the laparoscopic group included 110 and 367 patients, respectively. The preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups except for ASA score with a median (IQR) of 3 and 2 in the robotic and in the laparoscopic group, respectively (p = 0.03). Tumor size of adrenal tumors treated robotically (4, IQR 2.6-6 cm) was significantly larger than those treated laparoscopically (3, IQR 2.3-4.1 cm) (p = 0.01). The intraoperative complication rates were similar between robotic and laparoscopic groups (6.3% and 6%, respectively). The postoperative complication rate was 5.4% for robotic group and similarly 3.5% for laparoscopic adrenalectomy strategy. We analyzed the tumor ≥ 6 cm, with 29 patients in the robotic group and 43 in the laparoscopic one, with an overall complication rate of 19.5%. At multivariable analyses tumor size (OR 1.287; CI 1.128-1.468; p < 0.001) was the only independent predictor of overall complication.
CONCLUSION
Adrenal tumors can be safely treated either by robotic or laparoscopic strategy. MIS seems to be feasible also in larger adrenal masses (≥ 6 cm). Tumor size represents the only predictive factors for overall complication.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32328826
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07578-5
pii: 10.1007/s00464-020-07578-5
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1801-1807

Références

Lairmore TC, Folek J, Govednik CM, Snyder SK (2016) Improving minimally invasive adrenalectomy: selection of optimal approach and comparison of outcomes. World J Surg 40(7):1625–1631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3471-8
doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3471-8 pubmed: 26932878
Alemanno G, Bergamini C, Prosperi P, Valeri A (2017) Adrenalectomy: indications and options for treatment. Updates Surg 69:119–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0441-0
doi: 10.1007/s13304-017-0441-0 pubmed: 28421470
Samreen S, Fluck M, Hunsinger M, Wild J, Shabahang M, Blansfield JA (2019) Laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy: a review of the national inpatient sample. J Robot Surg 13:69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0808-3
doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0808-3 pubmed: 29696591
Gagner M, Lacroix A, Bolte E (1992) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome and pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 327:1033
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199210013271417
Smith CD, Weber CJ, Amerson JR (1999) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: new gold standard. World J Surg 23:389–396
doi: 10.1007/PL00012314
Ball MW, Hemal AK, Allaf ME (2017) International Consultation on Urological Diseases and European Association of Urology International Consultation on Minimally Invasive Surgery in Urology: laparoscopic and robotic adrenalectomy. BJU Int 119:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13592
doi: 10.1111/bju.13592 pubmed: 27431446
Piazza L, Caragliano P, Scardilli M, Sgroi AV, Marino G, Giannone G (1999) Laparoscopic robot-assisted right adrenalectomy and left ovariectomy (case reports). Chir Ital 51:465–466
pubmed: 10742897
Pineda-Solis K, Medina-Franco H, Heslin MJ (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a comparative study in a high-volume center. Surg Endosc 27:599–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2496-9
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2496-9 pubmed: 22955998
Mishra K, Maurice MJ, Bukavina L, Abouassaly R (2019) Comparative efficacy of laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy for adrenal malignancy. Urology 123:146–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.037
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.037 pubmed: 30196068
Stefanidis D, Goldfarb M, Kercher KW, Hope WW, Richardson W, Fanelli RD (2013) SAGES guidelines for minimally invasive treatment of adrenal pathology. Surg Endosc 27:3960–3980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3169-z
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3169-z pubmed: 24018761
Schwaibold H, Wiesend F, Bach C (2018) The age of robotic surgery—is laparoscopy dead? Arab J Urol 16:262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003 pubmed: 30140462 pmcid: 6104663
Agcaoglu O, Aliyev S, Karabulut K, Mitchell J, Siperstein A, Berber E (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of large adrenal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2288–2294. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2296-4
doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2296-4 pubmed: 22396002
de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM (2003) How to measure comorbidity. A critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 56:221–229
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00585-1
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Gagner M, Lacroix A, Bolte E, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. The importance of a flank approach in the lateral decubitus position. Surg Endosc 8:135–138
doi: 10.1007/BF00316627
Brandao LF, Autorino R, Zargar H, Krishnan J, Laydner H, Akca O, Mir MC, Samarasekera D, Stein R, Kaouk J (2014) Surgery in motion robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy: step-by-step technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol 66:898–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.04.003
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.04.003 pubmed: 24830625
Greilsamer T, Nomine-Criqui C, Thy M, Ullmann T, Zarnegar R, Bresler L, Brunaud L (2019) Robotic-assisted unilateral adrenalectomy: risk factors for perioperative complications in 303 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 33:802–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6346-2
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6346-2 pubmed: 29998394
Pavan N, Autorino R, Lee H, Porpiglia F, Sun Y, Greco F, Chueh SJ, Hyun D (2016) Impact of novel techniques on minimally invasive adrenal surgery: trends and outcomes from a contemporary international large series in urology. World J Urol 34(10):1473–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1791-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1791-9 pubmed: 26923920
Wu JC-H, Wu H-S, Lin M-S, Chou D-A, Huang M-H (2008) Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy with traditional laparoscopic adrenalectomy—1 year follow-up. Surg Endosc 22:463–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9488-1
doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9488-1 pubmed: 17704877
Economopoulos KP, Mylonas KS, Stamou AA, Theocharidis V, Sergentanis TN, Psaltopoulou T, Richards ML (2017) Laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy: a comprehensive meta- analysis. Int J Surg 38:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.118
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.118 pubmed: 28043926

Auteurs

Simone Sforza (S)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. simone.sforza1988@gmail.com.

Andrea Minervini (A)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Riccardo Tellini (R)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Changwei Ji (C)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Carlo Bergamini (C)

Emergency Surgery Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Alessio Giordano (A)

Emergency Surgery Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Qun Lu (Q)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Wei Chen (W)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Feifei Zhang (F)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Hao Ji (H)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Fabrizio Di Maida (F)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Paolo Prosperi (P)

Emergency Surgery Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Lorenzo Masieri (L)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Marco Carini (M)

Department of Oncologic, Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, San Luca Nuovo, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Andrea Valeri (A)

Emergency Surgery Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Hongqian Guo (H)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH