4.1 Article

Comparison of surgical outcomes between lateral and posterior approaches for retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: A single surgeon's experience

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 180-187

出版社

KOREAN UROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2020.61.2.180

关键词

Adrenalectomy; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Retroperitoneal space

资金

  1. Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital Institute for Biomedical Science [HCRI 19023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes between the lateral and the posterior approach for retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (RLA). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 130 patients who underwent RLA for adrenal tumors by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2018. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between two surgical groups: lateral approach (n=56) and posterior approach (n=74). Results: There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups except for operative time (lateral approach, 105.4 +/- 41.21 minutes vs. posterior approach, 71.5 +/- 31.51 minutes; p=0.001). In the lateral approach group, two patients (3.6%) underwent open conversion, but there were no major complications in either group (Clavien-Dindo classification >= 3). Male sex was associated with an operative time of >= 90 minutes in the univariate analysis (p=0.019), but this effect did not remain significant in the multivariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, large tumor size (>5 cm; p=0.020) and preoperative diagnosis of malignancy (p=0.043) were significantly associated with an operative time of >= 90 minutes. Conclusions: Both the lateral and posterior approaches for RLA were performed safely with similar operative outcomes and are therefore comparable options for the treatment of adrenal tumors. In addition, large tumor size and preoperative diagnosis of malignancy are associated with longer operative times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据