MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307377301 · doi:10.21037/ls-22-15

Laparoscopic approaches to adrenalectomy for large adrenal tumours: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4307377301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benji Varghese, Zia Moinuddin, Titus Augustine

Bibliographic record

VenueLaparoscopic Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdrenalectomyPerioperativeGold standard (test)SurgeryBlood lossBlood transfusionGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is considered the gold standard for benign, smaller secretory and non-secretory adrenal tumours. There is controversy however about its role for large tumors. In this review, we present the latest evidence on the feasibility of LA for large tumors and analyze the perioperative outcomes. Methods: Using PubMed database, we searched for relevant articles on LA for large tumors published between January 2010 and December 2021. These were scrutinized by two reviewers. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Studies comparing robotic adrenalectomy with LA, duplicate data in multiple publications, case reports and articles focused on surgical technique or predictive factors were excluded. The outcomes analyzed included operative time, blood loss, surgical complications, average length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery & tumor recurrence. A database was created on Microsoft ExcelTM. This is an unregistered systematic review. Results: A total of 15 suitable studies were identified. Retroperitoneal laparscopic adrenalectomy (RPLA) or transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (TPLA) was found to be safe and effective for large tumours (≥5 cm) when compared to open adrenalectomy (OA). RPLA had shorter operative time, quicker return of bowel function and shorter length of hospital stay when compared to TPLA and OA. Hand assisted LA (HALA) discussed in one study concluded that complication rates were higher than TPLA but lower than OA. However, open conversion in HALA was lower compared to other TPLA studies. Conclusions: LA can be considered for large (≥5 cm) and potentially malignant tumors if the operators have the required technical skills and strict oncological principles are followed. The procedure should ideally be converted to open surgery if local invasion is suspected intraoperatively with potentially compromised resection margins. HALA is an excellent compromise in large tumours with anatomical and technical challenges. Limitations of this study include small sample size and limited number of well constructed prospective studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaparoscopic SurgerySame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207