ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2019
Surgery for adrenal angiomyelolipoma: an individualized concept.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Management of patients with adrenal myelolipoma: experience from a tertiary referral centre.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause adrenal angiomyelolipoma (AAML) is rare and uniformly benign, the indications for surgery are ill defined.
methodsAmong a series of 156 patients with adrenal pathologies surgically treated between 2013 and 2018, 12 patients were operated with the diagnosis of an AAML. The clinical as well as imaging parameters forming the individual indications for surgery were analyzed.
resultsPreoperative diagnosis consistent with AAML was made in all 12 patients. The mean size of surgically removed AAML was 82.3 mm (45-150 mm). Gender and affected side were evenly distributed. Local symptoms but lack of radiological signs suspicious for malignancy or size increase were observed in 4 of 12 patients (group 1, 33%). In contrast, 4 of 12 patients (group 2, 33%) showed radiological signs suspicious for malignancy but lacked local symptoms. Additional 4 of 12 patients (group 3, 33%) showed both local symptoms and radiological signs suspicious for malignancy. Patients with local symptoms harbored significantly larger tumors compared to those patients that lacked local symptoms (93.9 mm ± 32.8 vs. 59.3 mm ± 2.7, p = 0.021). Patients with radiologically suspicious signs were older (60 years ± 9.9 vs. 53 years ± 5.4, p > 0.05), and time to surgery was shorter (4.4 months ± 3 vs. 6.0 months ± 3.0, p > 0.05). Importantly, surgical approach was not influenced by tumor size (p = 0.65). However, patients with suspicious imaging were more likely to be operated by conventional open approach (4 of 8 vs. 0 of 4, p = 0.08). The minimal invasive approach was associated with shorter hospital stay (7 days, ± 1.3 vs. 14.2 days, ± 8.8, p = 0.038). All lesions that showed radiological signs suspicious for malignancy proved benign in final histology.
conclusionLarge AAML present a clinical challenge. The presence of local symptoms and/or radiological signs suspicious for malignancy identifies three groups of patients that define the concept of an individualized indication for surgery in AAML. A minimal invasive approach can be advocated even for large AAML with radiological signs suspicious for malignancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30972487What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.