ArticleBMC surgery2025
Single-Layer renal surface vs. standard three-layer approach in retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: surgical efficiency, learning curves, and recovery outcomes.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the perioperative outcomes and technical proficiency between the retroperitoneal laparoscopic single-layer renal surface approach (SLRS) and the standard three-layer approach (TLA) for benign adrenal tumors.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 117 patients undergoing retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (66 TLA vs. 51 SLRS) was analyzed. Primary outcomes included operative metrics, postoperative recovery (drainage volume, fever incidence, catheter duration), and learning curves. Statistical analyses adjusted for pathological heterogeneity (covariate: cortical adenoma predominance in SLRS). Learning curves were quantified via linear regression slopes and moving-average stabilization thresholds.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable except for pathological distribution (P = 0.034), incorporated as a covariate. SLRS demonstrated a significantly shallower learning curve (slope:-0.52 vs.-1.35 min/case; P = 0.028) and earlier proficiency stabilization (15 vs. 26 cases). Early-phase blood loss was lower with SLRS (33.2 ± 18.1 mL vs. 45.8 ± 24.6 mL; P = 0.012). Postoperatively, SLRS reduced fever incidence (7.8% vs. 12.1%; P = 0.013), 24-hr drain output (58.2 vs. 71.8 mL; P = 0.004), catheter duration (4.71 ± 2.39 vs. 6.27 ± 2.23 days; P < 0.001), and 24-hr pain scores (0.01 ± 0.2 vs. 0.15 ± 0.53; P = 0.045). Paradoxically, SLRS prolonged oral intake initiation (64.67 ± 32.07 vs. 45.36 ± 13.68 h; P < 0.001) and overall hospitalization (24.14 ± 12.48 vs. 20.18 ± 6.71 days; P = 0.03). Control charts confirmed superior procedural stability for SLRS in operative time and blood loss.
conclusionThe SLRS approach significantly accelerates postoperative recovery (e.g., reduced fever incidence, drain output, and pain scores) and shortens the learning curve while maintaining operative safety. Notably, SLRS was associated with slightly prolonged hospital stay, potentially linked to extended renal mobilization or institutional perioperative protocols. These findings highlight SLRS as a viable alternative to TLA for enhancing surgical efficiency and early convalescence.
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.