A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence Comparing Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Adrenalectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) and conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) as a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. METHODS: We conducted a thorough search for comparative studies that compared LESS-A and conventional LA in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Studies were reviewed independently and rated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The operative time, estimated blood loss in operation, the time to resume oral intake after surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and the visual analog pain scale (VAPS) score were included for analysis to compare the efficacy, while the complications together with the analgesia use were included for analysis to compare the safety. RESULTS: Nine studies with 171 LESS-A cases and 272 conventional LA cases were identified. Although operative time was longer in LESS-A (mean difference [MD] 15.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.18 to 19.74), estimated blood loss (MD 4.72, 95% CI 12.08 to 21.52) and the time to resume oral intake (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.11) were similar; LESS-A presented a shorter postoperative stay in hospital (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.35) and lower VAPS score (MD -1.21, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.97). Besides, the risk of minor postoperative complications (risk ratio [RR] 1.74, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.87) was similar. The postoperative analgesia demand in total (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81) together with the analgesia usage lasting more than 24 hours after surgery (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.58) were associated with lower risk in LESS-A, however. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, the operative time seems to be longer in LESS-A; however, operative blood loss and complications are similar. In addition, LESS-A presents a shorter hospital stay after surgery and more acceptable perception of pain than conventional LA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".