4.3 Article

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for large pheochromocytoma: Comparative outcomes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 212-216

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13838

Keywords

laparoscopic adrenalectomy; large; pheochromocytoma; retroperitoneal; transperitoneal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To evaluate operative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic adrenalectomy through a transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneal approach for large (>5 cm in diameter) pheochromocytomas. Methods We retrospectively compared the results of a transperitoneal approach with those of a retroperitoneal approach in 22 patients (mean age 57.5 years, range 38-76 years) with unilateral large pheochromocytomas (12 right, 10 left). The mean body mass index, operation time, pneumoperitoneum time, estimated blood loss, fluctuation in blood pressure and complication rate were compared between the two approaches. Results The mean tumor diameter (range) was 7.0 cm (range 5.2-15.5 cm), and no significant differences were observed between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneal approach in any baseline clinical parameter. For right-sided procedures, significant differences were found for operation time (113 vs 85 min), pneumoperitoneum time (93 vs 64 min) and estimated blood loss (96 vs 23 mL; P < 0.05, transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneal approach, respectively). No open conversion or recurrence was reported, but one right transperitoneal approach case required blood transfusion. No difference in these parameters was noted on the left side. Conclusions For right side procedures, the retroperitoneal approach is feasible, safer and faster than the transperitoneal approach for large pheochromocytomas. Early transection of the feeding artery is beneficial for managing the tumor and reducing the risk of bleeding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available