Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Adrenal Malignancy: A Preliminary Report Comparing the Short-Term Outcomes with Open Adrenalectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach to adrenal malignancy remains a topic of debate. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had an open or laparoscopic adrenalectomy for malignancy at a tertiary care center from 1995 to 2005 were included in this study. RESULTS: Twenty-six cases were identified: 19 women and 7 men with a median age of 48 years (range, 20-81) underwent 12 open (8 adrenocortical carcinoma [ACC] and 4 metastases) and 14 laparoscopic adrenalectomies (5 ACC, 8 metastases, and 1 lymphoma). Conversion to open surgery was required in 1 laparoscopic case (7%). Cases with obvious invasion to adjacent organs were not approached laparoscopically. There was no difference in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists status or diagnosis between the two groups, but patients in the laparoscopic group had a higher body mass index. Two patients required splenectomies for splenic tears in the open group. There was no difference in operative time between the two groups, but estimated blood loss (200 vs. 550 mL; P = 0.01) and hospital stay (2 vs. 7 days; P = 0.005) were less in the laparoscopic group. The size of tumors removed by open surgery was larger than by laparoscopy (8 vs. 4 cm; P = 0.003). No locoregional recurrences are reported so far in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is both feasible and safe for some malignant tumors of the adrenal gland in experienced hands. However, it cannot be applied to all cases. Careful selection, preoperative staging, and respect for oncologic principles are important considerations in choosing laparoscopic surgery for primary and secondary adrenal malignancy. Short-term outcomes are better when the laparoscopic approach is possible. Confirmation and long-term results with further studies are required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".