Feasibility of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in adrenal masses greater than 5 centimeters: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".