BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is considered the standard of care for removal of small adrenal masses, there are minimal data describing the feasibility and outcomes of LA after previous ipsilateral nephrectomy (PIN). The purpose of the study was to describe the perioperative outcomes in a series of patients who were undergoing LA after PIN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using an institutional database, we identified patients who underwent LA since 2002 by a single surgeon. Clinical and pathologic data were collected and analyzed. To evaluate outcomes, patients undergoing LA after PIN were compared with patients undergoing LA without PIN. RESULTS: Of 54 consecutive patients undergoing LA, 8 had PIN for renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). Estimated blood loss was not significantly greater in patients with PIN: 50 mL vs 100 mL, P=0.109. Operative time was longer in patients with PIN: 120 minutes vs 156 minutes, P=0.015. There was no difference in length of hospital stay between groups: Median 2 days for both groups, P=0.635. One patient in the PIN group had a conversion to open adrenalectomy and needed blood transfusion. Perioperative complications were seen in 5/46 (10.6%) patients without and in 1/8 (12.5%) patients with PIN. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this study represents the largest experience with adrenalectomy in the reoperative setting. LA after PIN is associated with a longer operative time. While the potential for conversion is possible, it is technically feasible in selected patients and thus far appears to be associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared with patients without PIN.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is considered the standard of care for removal of small adrenal masses, there are minimal data describing the feasibility and outcomes of LA after previous ipsilateral nephrectomy (PIN). The purpose of the study was to describe the perioperative outcomes in a series of patients who were undergoing LA after PIN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using an institutional database, we identified patients who underwent LA since 2002 by a single surgeon. Clinical and pathologic data were collected and analyzed. To evaluate outcomes, patients undergoing LA after PIN were compared with patients undergoing LA without PIN. RESULTS: Of 54 consecutive patients undergoing LA, 8 had PIN for renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). Estimated blood loss was not significantly greater in patients with PIN: 50 mL vs 100 mL, P=0.109. Operative time was longer in patients with PIN: 120 minutes vs 156 minutes, P=0.015. There was no difference in length of hospital stay between groups: Median 2 days for both groups, P=0.635. One patient in the PIN group had a conversion to open adrenalectomy and needed blood transfusion. Perioperative complications were seen in 5/46 (10.6%) patients without and in 1/8 (12.5%) patients with PIN. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this study represents the largest experience with adrenalectomy in the reoperative setting. LA after PIN is associated with a longer operative time. While the potential for conversion is possible, it is technically feasible in selected patients and thus far appears to be associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared with patients without PIN.
Authors: Jithin Yohannan; Tom Feng; Jared Berkowitz; Stephen S Connolly; Philip Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: James Lee; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Tracy Schifftner; Florence E Turrentine; William G Henderson; Shukri Khuri; John B Hanks; William B Inabnet Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Vitaly Margulis; Surena F Matin; Nizar Tannir; Pheroze Tamboli; David A Swanson; Eric Jonasch; Christopher G Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Mark A Warren; Ali Reza Golshayan; Chakshu Sahi; Bernhard J Eigl; J Dean Ruether; Tina Cheng; Scott North; Peter Venner; Jennifer J Knox; Kim N Chi; Christian Kollmannsberger; David F McDermott; William K Oh; Michael B Atkins; Ronald M Bukowski; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arun Z Thomas; Mehrad Adibi; Leonardo D Borregales; Ly N Hoang; Pheroze Tamboli; Eric Jonasch; Nizar M Tannir; Surena F Matin; Christopher G Wood; Jose A Karam Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Inga Peters; Milan Hora; Thomas R Herrmann; Christoph von Klot; Gerd Wegener; Petr Stransky; Ondrej Hes; Markus A Kuczyk; Axel S Merseburger Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Petr Stránský; Viktor Eret; Tomáš Urge; Ivan Trávníček; Zdeněk Chudáček; Ondřej Hes; Milan Hora Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 1.195