Nicola Pavan1,2, Riccardo Autorino3, Hak Lee4, Francesco Porpiglia5, Yinghao Sun6, Francesco Greco7, S Jeff Chueh8, Deok Hyun Han9, Luca Cindolo10, Matteo Ferro11, Xiang Chen12, Anibal Branco13, Paolo Fornara14, Chun-Hou Liao15, Akira Miyajima16, Iason Kyriazis17, Marco Puglisi18, Cristian Fiori5, Bo Yang6, Guo Fei6, Vincenzo Altieri7, Byong Chang Jeong9, Francesco Berardinelli10, Luigi Schips10, Ottavio De Cobelli11, Zhi Chen12, Georges-Pascal Haber8, Yao He12, Mototsugu Oya16, Evangelos Liatsikos17, Luis Brandao8, Benjamin Challacombe18, Jihad Kaouk8, Ithaar Darweesh4. 1. University Hospitals Urology Institute, Case Western Reserve University, 27100 Chardon Rd, Richmond Heights, OH, 44143, USA. 2. Urology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 3. University Hospitals Urology Institute, Case Western Reserve University, 27100 Chardon Rd, Richmond Heights, OH, 44143, USA. ricautor@gmail.com. 4. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 7. Department of Urology, Romolo Hospital, Rocca di Neto, Italy. 8. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 9. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Italy. 10. Department of Urology, S. Pio Da Pietralcina Hospital, Vasto, Italy. 11. Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 12. Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, China. 13. Department of Urology, Cruz Vermelha Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil. 14. Department of Urology, Martin-Luther-University, Halle Saale, Germany. 15. Department of Urology, Medical College, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan. 16. Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 17. Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. 18. Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contemporary international trends in the implementation of minimally invasive adrenalectomy and to assess contemporary outcomes of different minimally invasive techniques performed at urologic centers worldwide. METHODS: A retrospective multinational multicenter study of patients who underwent minimally invasive adrenalectomy from 2008 to 2013 at 14 urology institutions worldwide was included in the analysis. Cases were categorized based on the minimally invasive adrenalectomy technique: conventional laparoscopy (CL), robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). The rates of the four treatment modalities were determined according to the year of surgery, and a regression analysis was performed for trends in all surgical modalities. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 737 adrenalectomies were performed across participating institutions and included in this analysis: 337 CL (46 % of cases), 57 ML (8 %), 263 LESS (36 %), and 80 RA (11 %). Overall, 204 (28 %) operations were performed with a retroperitoneal approach. The overall number of adrenalectomies increased from 2008 to 2013 (p = 0.05). A transperitoneal approach was preferred in all but the ML group (p < 0.001). European centers mostly adopted CL and ML techniques, whereas those from Asia and South America reported the highest rate in LESS procedures, and RAL was adopted to larger extent in the USA. LESS had the fastest increase in utilization at 6 %/year. The rate of RAL procedures increased at slower rates (2.2 %/year), similar to ML (1.7 %/year). Limitations of this study are the retrospective design and the lack of a cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Several minimally invasive surgical techniques for the management of adrenal masses are successfully implemented in urology institutions worldwide. CL and LESS seem to represent the most commonly adopted techniques, whereas ML and RAL are growing at a slower rate. All the MIS techniques can be safely and effectively performed for a variety of adrenal disease.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contemporary international trends in the implementation of minimally invasive adrenalectomy and to assess contemporary outcomes of different minimally invasive techniques performed at urologic centers worldwide. METHODS: A retrospective multinational multicenter study of patients who underwent minimally invasive adrenalectomy from 2008 to 2013 at 14 urology institutions worldwide was included in the analysis. Cases were categorized based on the minimally invasive adrenalectomy technique: conventional laparoscopy (CL), robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). The rates of the four treatment modalities were determined according to the year of surgery, and a regression analysis was performed for trends in all surgical modalities. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 737 adrenalectomies were performed across participating institutions and included in this analysis: 337 CL (46 % of cases), 57 ML (8 %), 263 LESS (36 %), and 80 RA (11 %). Overall, 204 (28 %) operations were performed with a retroperitoneal approach. The overall number of adrenalectomies increased from 2008 to 2013 (p = 0.05). A transperitoneal approach was preferred in all but the ML group (p < 0.001). European centers mostly adopted CL and ML techniques, whereas those from Asia and South America reported the highest rate in LESS procedures, and RAL was adopted to larger extent in the USA. LESS had the fastest increase in utilization at 6 %/year. The rate of RAL procedures increased at slower rates (2.2 %/year), similar to ML (1.7 %/year). Limitations of this study are the retrospective design and the lack of a cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Several minimally invasive surgical techniques for the management of adrenal masses are successfully implemented in urology institutions worldwide. CL and LESS seem to represent the most commonly adopted techniques, whereas ML and RAL are growing at a slower rate. All the MIS techniques can be safely and effectively performed for a variety of adrenal disease.
Authors: Mario Zacharias; Alexander Haese; Andreas Jurczok; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Paolo Fornara Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-01-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Melanie Goldfarb; Kent W Kercher; William W Hope; William Richardson; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Riccardo Autorino; Wesley M White; Matthew T Gettman; Ali Khalifeh; Marco De Sio; Estevão Lima; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Urology Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Francesco Greco; M Raschid Hoda; Jens Rassweiler; Dirk Fahlenkamp; Dietmar A Neisius; Andreas Kutta; Joachim W Thüroff; Andreas Krause; Walter L Strohmaier; Alexander Bachmann; Lothar Hertle; Gralf Popken; Serdar Deger; Christian Doehn; Dieter Jocham; Tillmann Loch; Sven Lahme; Volker Janitzky; Christian P Gilfrich; Theodor Klotz; Bernd Kopper; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälbe; Ulrich Wetterauer; Armin Leitenberger; Jörg Rassler; Felix Kawan; Antonino Inferrera; Sigrid Wagner; Paolo Fornara Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M Francesca Monn; Adam C Calaway; Matthew J Mellon; Clinton D Bahler; Chandru P Sundaram; Ronald S Boris Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Kamran Ahmed; Amel Ibrahim; Tim T Wang; Nuzhath Khan; Ben Challacombe; Muhammed Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Felipe Girón; Carlos Eduardo Rey Chaves; Lina Rodríguez; Roberto Javier Rueda-Esteban; Ricardo E Núñez-Rocha; Sara Toledo; Danny Conde; Juan David Hernández; Marco Vanegas; Ricardo Nassar Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 2.030