Bora Kahramangil1, Eren Berber2. 1. Department of Endocrine Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/F20, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Department of Endocrine Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/F20, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. berbere@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have been published on robotic adrenalectomy (RA) in the literature, none has done a comparison of posterior retroperitoneal (PR) and transabdominal lateral (TL) approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic PR and TL adrenalectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Between September 2008 and January 2017, perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing RA through PR and TL approaches were recorded into an IRB-approved database. Clinical and perioperative parameters were compared using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and χ 2 test. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with total operative time. RESULTS: 188 patients underwent 200 RAs. 110 patients were operated through TL and 78 patients through PR approach. Overall, conversion rate to open was 2.5% and 90-day morbidity 4.8%. The perioperative outcomes of TL and PR approaches were similar regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and 90-day morbidity. PR approach resulted in a shorter mean ± SD total operative time (136.3 ± 38.7 vs. 154.6 ± 48.4 min; p = 0.005) and lower visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day #1 (4.3 ± 2.5 vs. 5.4 ± 2.4; p = 0.001). After excluding tumors larger than 6 cm operated through TL approach, the difference in operative times persisted (136.3 ± 38.7 vs. 153.7 ± 45.7 min; p = 0.009). On multivariate regression analysis, increasing BMI and TL approaches were associated with longer total operative time. CONCLUSION: This study shows that robotic PR and TL approaches are equally safe and efficacious. With experience, shorter operative time and less postoperative pain can be achieved with PR technique. This supports the preferential utilization of PR approach in high-volume centers with enough experience.
BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have been published on robotic adrenalectomy (RA) in the literature, none has done a comparison of posterior retroperitoneal (PR) and transabdominal lateral (TL) approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic PR and TL adrenalectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Between September 2008 and January 2017, perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing RA through PR and TL approaches were recorded into an IRB-approved database. Clinical and perioperative parameters were compared using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and χ 2 test. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with total operative time. RESULTS: 188 patients underwent 200 RAs. 110 patients were operated through TL and 78 patients through PR approach. Overall, conversion rate to open was 2.5% and 90-day morbidity 4.8%. The perioperative outcomes of TL and PR approaches were similar regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and 90-day morbidity. PR approach resulted in a shorter mean ± SD total operative time (136.3 ± 38.7 vs. 154.6 ± 48.4 min; p = 0.005) and lower visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day #1 (4.3 ± 2.5 vs. 5.4 ± 2.4; p = 0.001). After excluding tumors larger than 6 cm operated through TL approach, the difference in operative times persisted (136.3 ± 38.7 vs. 153.7 ± 45.7 min; p = 0.009). On multivariate regression analysis, increasing BMI and TL approaches were associated with longer total operative time. CONCLUSION: This study shows that robotic PR and TL approaches are equally safe and efficacious. With experience, shorter operative time and less postoperative pain can be achieved with PR technique. This supports the preferential utilization of PR approach in high-volume centers with enough experience.
Authors: P C Giulianotti; N C Buchs; P Addeo; F M Bianco; S M Ayloo; G Caravaglios; A Coratti Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Laurent Brunaud; Ahmet Ayav; Rasa Zarnegar; Anthony Rouers; Marc Klein; Patrick Boissel; Laurent Bresler Journal: Surgery Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: James G Bittner; Victoria M Gershuni; Brent D Matthews; Jeffrey F Moley; L Michael Brunt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Konstantinos P Economopoulos; Roy Phitayakorn; Carrie C Lubitz; Peter M Sadow; Sareh Parangi; Antonia E Stephen; Richard A Hodin Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: J M Winter; M A Talamini; C L Stanfield; D C Chang; J D Hundt; A P Dackiw; K A Campbell; R D Schulick Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-12-07 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: M Thomaschewski; H Neeff; T Keck; H P H Neumann; T Strate; E von Dobschuetz Journal: Rev Endocr Metab Disord Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 6.514
Authors: Ju Yong Oh; Ho Seok Chung; Seong Hyeon Yu; Myung Soo Kim; Ho Song Yu; Eu Chang Hwang; Kyung Jin Oh; Sun-Ouck Kim; Seung Il Jung; Taek Won Kang; Kwangsung Park; Dongdeuk Kwon Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2020-02-05