ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Minimally invasive adrenalectomy for adrenocortical cancers: A systematic review.
Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open Conversion at Robotic Adrenalectomy: Rates and Predictors.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- An Analysis of Post-Adrenalectomy Dynamics in MACS (Mild Autonomous Cortisol Secretion)-Positive Adrenal Tumours: The Biomarkers and Clinical Impact.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- What's inside.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Adrenocortical cancer (ACC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. Due to the widespread use of imaging, greater proportion of cases are being discovered at an early stage, and it is possible to surgically excise these tumors by minimally invasive (MIS) approaches, including pure laparoscopy and robotic assistance. However, due to the fear of capsular breach, tumor spill, and incomplete removal, open surgery (OS) is still the preferred option for managing ACC. The aim of this review is to compare the two approaches and assess where MIS can be option for the surgical management of ACC. Methods: This review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews statement. Studies comparing OS and MIS approaches for ACC were retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The two approaches were compared for tumor characteristics and outcomes. Results: A total of 22 studies comparing MIS with OS were included in this review. Out of the total 4639 patients, 1411 underwent surgery by MIS and 3228 by OS. Patients operated by MIS had smaller tumors, lower operative time and blood loss with higher positive surgical margin rate, and higher rate of local recurrence. However, the overall survival was comparable between the two approaches. Conclusions: MIS can be used in localized Stage-I ACC but only at high-volume centers. Stage II ACC may be considered for MIS if there is no evidence of local invasion and the surgery can be performed without capsular perforation and conversion to OS.
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.