ArticleGland surgery2024
Feasibility of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in adrenal masses greater than 5 centimeters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2024. 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.
- Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Pheochromocytoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) has emerged as the primary treatment for adrenal masses. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed LA's feasibility, safety, effectiveness, and complications for adrenal masses exceeding 5 cm. Methods: The study was conducted using PRISMA guidelines with PROSPERO registration No. CRD42023462901. Adults with unilateral adrenal masses >5 cm who underwent unilateral LA were included. Intraoperative and postoperative measurements and complications were assessed. A systematic literature review employed a comprehensive search strategy which was last searched on September 8, 2023, through PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases. Meta-analysis was utilized to analyze the outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: This systematic review encompassed 25 studies involving 963 patients who underwent LA. Tumor size varied 7.05 cm [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.24-7.70], with 50% on the right and 45% on the left. The subgroup meta-analysis comparing the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches revealed the transperitoneal approach h was utilized for the largest tumor size with a mean of 12.10 cm (95% CI: 11.30-12.96), compared to the retroperitoneal approach 5.83 cm (95% CI: 5.52-6.14). Notably, the mean operative time across studies was 137.4 minutes (95% CI: 113.36-150.94), bleeding prevalence was 0.02% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03%), and average blood loss was 110.6 mL (95% CI: 78.2-156.3). Postoperative complications such as pulmonary edema, pulmonary embolism, gastric dysfunction, and wound infection were very low, ranging from 0.03% to 0.4%. Out of 963 patients, only 49 were converted to open surgery. Patient hospital stay averaged 3.72 days (95% CI: 2.97-4.66); blood transfusion was required in 1.3% (95% CI: 0.30-8.88%). Conclusions: The feasibility and safety of LA for tumors exceeding 5 cm in size have notable implications for intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Underreporting in the included studies may impact the generalizability of findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.