BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic adrenalectomy on patients with incidentalomas. We analyzed the results of a multi-centre trial that was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) to obtain a correct preoperative diagnosis. METHODS: We obtained our data from the results of a questionnaire that was distributed by mail or email in May 2005 to several surgical units operating in the Campania Region, Italy. Lap Club, a collaborative laparoscopic surgery study group founded in Naples in 1995, distributed the questionnaire. Thirteen centres participated in the audit. In all, we analyzed 255 adrenalectomies performed on 250 patients. We performed statistical analysis using SPSS software. RESULTS: The distribution of pathologic findings demonstrates that the number of lesions caused by cancer discovered from a preoperative indication of incidentaloma has been even smaller (1/114, 0.8%) than the previous numbers reported in the literature. Moreover, whereas most patients with adrenal cancer had lesions larger than 6 cm (7/8, 87.5%), the majority of patients with adrenal metastases had lesions 6 cm or smaller (10/12, 83.3%). Different indications for adrenalectomy emerged on comparison of endocrine surgery units with general surgery units. This difference appears to be significant (p < 0.001), especially on evaluation of the number of nonfunctioning adenomas and the number of endocrine lesions that were observed and treated. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy remains the gold standard method for adrenalectomy, but its availability must not obligate physicians to treat with surgery when an incidentaloma is detected through imaging. Adrenal malignancies when metastatic are often 6 cm or smaller. If they are single and they originated from a non-small lung cancer, they must be removed. The endocrine surgery unit remains the best setting to evaluate and treat adrenal gland surgical pathology.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic adrenalectomy on patients with incidentalomas. We analyzed the results of a multi-centre trial that was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) to obtain a correct preoperative diagnosis. METHODS: We obtained our data from the results of a questionnaire that was distributed by mail or email in May 2005 to several surgical units operating in the Campania Region, Italy. Lap Club, a collaborative laparoscopic surgery study group founded in Naples in 1995, distributed the questionnaire. Thirteen centres participated in the audit. In all, we analyzed 255 adrenalectomies performed on 250 patients. We performed statistical analysis using SPSS software. RESULTS: The distribution of pathologic findings demonstrates that the number of lesions caused by cancer discovered from a preoperative indication of incidentaloma has been even smaller (1/114, 0.8%) than the previous numbers reported in the literature. Moreover, whereas most patients with adrenal cancer had lesions larger than 6 cm (7/8, 87.5%), the majority of patients with adrenal metastases had lesions 6 cm or smaller (10/12, 83.3%). Different indications for adrenalectomy emerged on comparison of endocrine surgery units with general surgery units. This difference appears to be significant (p < 0.001), especially on evaluation of the number of nonfunctioning adenomas and the number of endocrine lesions that were observed and treated. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy remains the gold standard method for adrenalectomy, but its availability must not obligate physicians to treat with surgery when an incidentaloma is detected through imaging. Adrenal malignancies when metastatic are often 6 cm or smaller. If they are single and they originated from a non-small lung cancer, they must be removed. The endocrine surgery unit remains the best setting to evaluate and treat adrenal gland surgical pathology.
Authors: Georg Mansmann; Joseph Lau; Ethan Balk; Michael Rothberg; Yukitaka Miyachi; Stefan R Bornstein Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: C C Barnett; D G Varma; A K El-Naggar; A P Dackiw; G A Porter; A S Pearson; A P Kudelka; R F Gagel; D B Evans; J E Lee Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: F Mantero; M Terzolo; G Arnaldi; G Osella; A M Masini; A Alì; M Giovagnetti; G Opocher; A Angeli Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Melvin M Grumbach; Beverly M K Biller; Glenn D Braunstein; Karen K Campbell; J Aidan Carney; Paul A Godley; Emily L Harris; Joseph K T Lee; Yolanda C Oertel; Mitchell C Posner; Janet A Schlechte; H Samuel Wieand Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stan Sidhu; Christopher Bambach; Stephen Pillinger; Thomas Reeve; Gordon Stokes; Bruce Robinson; Leigh Delbridge Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 1.872
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Mateusz Wierdak; Michał Natkaniec; Maciej Matłok; Magdalena Białas; Piotr Major; Piotr Budzyński; Alicja Hubalewska-Dydejczyk; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Michał Natkaniec; Mikhail Kisialeuski; Piotr Major; Maciej Matłok; Damian Kołodziej; Anna Zub-Pokrowiecka; Piotr Budzyński; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Int J Endocrinol Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 3.257