MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400123092 · doi:10.21037/gs-24-69

Feasibility of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in adrenal masses greater than 5 centimeters: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400123092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lama Alzelfawi, Ebtesam Almajed, Zeena Alhindawi, Lena AlDosari, Almaha Abdullah Alhumaidan, Bandar N Alharthi

Bibliographic record

VenueGland Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisAdrenalectomyCentimeterLaparoscopySystematic reviewSurgeryMEDLINEGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) has emerged as the primary treatment for adrenal masses. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed LA's feasibility, safety, effectiveness, and complications for adrenal masses exceeding 5 cm. Methods: The study was conducted using PRISMA guidelines with PROSPERO registration No. CRD42023462901. Adults with unilateral adrenal masses >5 cm who underwent unilateral LA were included. Intraoperative and postoperative measurements and complications were assessed. A systematic literature review employed a comprehensive search strategy which was last searched on September 8, 2023, through PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases. Meta-analysis was utilized to analyze the outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: This systematic review encompassed 25 studies involving 963 patients who underwent LA. Tumor size varied 7.05 cm [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.24-7.70], with 50% on the right and 45% on the left. The subgroup meta-analysis comparing the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches revealed the transperitoneal approach h was utilized for the largest tumor size with a mean of 12.10 cm (95% CI: 11.30-12.96), compared to the retroperitoneal approach 5.83 cm (95% CI: 5.52-6.14). Notably, the mean operative time across studies was 137.4 minutes (95% CI: 113.36-150.94), bleeding prevalence was 0.02% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03%), and average blood loss was 110.6 mL (95% CI: 78.2-156.3). Postoperative complications such as pulmonary edema, pulmonary embolism, gastric dysfunction, and wound infection were very low, ranging from 0.03% to 0.4%. Out of 963 patients, only 49 were converted to open surgery. Patient hospital stay averaged 3.72 days (95% CI: 2.97-4.66); blood transfusion was required in 1.3% (95% CI: 0.30-8.88%). Conclusions: The feasibility and safety of LA for tumors exceeding 5 cm in size have notable implications for intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Underreporting in the included studies may impact the generalizability of findings.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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