| Literature DB >> 35268355 |
Rocco Simone Flammia1, Umberto Anceschi2, Antonio Tufano1, Eugenio Bologna1, Flavia Proietti1, Alfredo Maria Bove1, Leonardo Misuraca1, Riccardo Mastroianni1, Giuseppe Tirone3, Alessandro Carrara4, Lorenzo Luciani5, Tommaso Cai5, Costantino Leonardo1, Giuseppe Simone2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and metanalysis was conducted to assess differences between perioperative and functional outcomes in patients undergoing minimally-invasive partial (mi-PA) and total adrenalectomy (mi-TA) for unilateral primary aldosteronism (uPHA).Entities:
Keywords: Conn’s syndrome; PASO; partial adrenalectomy; total adrenalectomy; unilateral primary aldosteronism
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268355 PMCID: PMC8911420 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1PRISMA flow chart.
Summary of published research: eligible studies testing perioperative and functional outcomes of mi-PA versus mi-TA.
| Author | Year | Study | Institution | Patients | Time | Surgical Procedure | Surgical Technique | Follow-Up (mo) | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria | Diagnostic Test | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2020 | Retrospective | Multiple | 90 | 2011–2020 | 29 vs. 61 | Robotic (24) | 41 vs. 46 | (a) Primary Hyperaldosteronism; | (a) Follow-up < 18 mo | (a) CT and/or MRI | Perioperative and Functional outcomes * |
|
| 2020 | Retrospective | Multiple | 249 | 2008–2018 | 81 vs. 168 | Lap | 22.8 vs. 24.8 | (a) Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism | (a) Follow-up < 60 mo | (a) CT and/or MRI | Perioperative and Functional outcomes * |
|
| 2020 | Retrospective | Single | 96 | 2012–2017 | 65 vs. 31 | Lap | 32.3 vs. 40.8 | (a) APA | (a) IHA | (a) CT scan | Perioperative and Functional outcome |
|
| 2014 | Prospective | Single | 63 | 2008–2011 | 16 vs. 47 | Lap | 12 | (a) Primary Aldosteronism | NA | (a) CT scan | Perioperative and Functional outcomes * |
|
| 2011 | RCT | Single | 212 | 2000–2004 | 104 vs. 108 | Lap | 96 | (a) APA | (a) Previous ipsilateral adrenal surgery; | (a) CT and/or MRI | Perioperative and Functional outcome |
|
| 2005 | Retrospective | Single | 92 | 1995–2004 | 29 vs. 63 | Lap | 60.3 vs. 29.3 | (a) APA | (a) IHA | (a) CT scan | Parioperative outcome |
| APA = aldosterone producing adenoma, IHA = idiopathic aldosteronism, UAH = unilateral adrenal hypeplasia, mo = months. * Use of PASO (Primary Aldosteronism Surgical Outcome study) criteria for the assessment of Clinical and/or Biochemical success. ° Adrenal venous sampling (AVS) was not performed in all patients and no clear indication were reported in most studies. | ||||||||||||
Summary of published research: Baseline characteristics among eligible studies testing perioperative and functional outcomes of PA vs. TA.
| Author | Patients | Age | Gender (M:F) | Tumor Size (cm) | Side (R:L) | ASA | BMI | Surgical Approach (Rt:Tr) | HYT Duration (years) | ant-HYT Drugs (n°) | SBP | DBO | sP | sA | sRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PA (29) | median (IQR) | 13:16 | median (IQR) | 7:22 | 23;6 | NA | 2:27 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TA (61) | median (IQR) | 23:38 | median (IQR) | 38:23 | 50;11 | NA | 20:41 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
| PA (81) | mean (SD) | 46:35 | mean (SD) | 36:45 | 80;1 | mean (SD) | NA | median (range) | median (range) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TA (168) | mean (SD) | 69:99 | mean (SD) | 81:87 | 158;8 | mean (SD) | NA | median (range) | median (range) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
| PA (65) | mean (SD) | 22:43 | mean (SD) | 27:38 | NA | NA | 65:0 | NA | NA | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean | NA |
| TA (31) | mean (SD) | 12:19 | mean (SD) | 13:18 | NA | NA | 31:0 | NA | NA | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean | NA | |
|
| PA (16) | mean (SD) | 7:9 | mean (SD) | 11:5 | NA | mean (SD) | 0:16 | NA | NA | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean | mean (SD) |
| TA (47) | mean (SD) | 21:26 | mean (SD) | 25:22 | NA | mean (SD) | 0:47 | NA | NA | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean | mean (SD) | |
|
| PA (104) | mean (SD) | 45:59 | mean (SD) | 58:46 | 2.3 (1.7) | mean (SD) | 104:0 | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean | mean (SD) |
| TA (108) | mean (SD) | 48:60 | mean (SD) | 55:53 | 2.6 (1.3) | mean (SD) | 108:0 | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | mean | mean (SD) | |
|
| PA (29) | median (range) | 15:14 | median (range) | 17:12 | NA | NA | 23:6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TA (63) | median (range) | 31:32 | median (range) | 25:37 | NA | NA | 0:63 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| NA = not avialble; BMI = body mass index; HYT = hypertension; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBO = diastolic blood pressure; sP = serum potassium, sA = serum aldosterone; sRA = serum Renin Activity. | |||||||||||||||
Figure 2Cumulative analysis of eligible studies comparing mi-PA vs. mi-TA in terms of (a) operative time, (b) transfusion rate, (c) blood loss, (d) hospital stay, (e) overall complication, and (f) Clavien–Dindo ≥ 2. IV = inverse variance; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; M–H = Mantel–Haenszel. Each studies is represented by a square incorporating confidence intervals represented by horizontal lines. The area of each square is proportional to the study’s weight in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysed measure of effect is plotted as a diamond with lateral points indicating confidence intervals.
Figure 3Cumulative analysis of eligible studies comparing mi-PA vs. mi-TA in terms of (a) complete clinical success according to PASO criteria, (b) partial clinical success according to PASO criteria, (c) absent clinical success according to PASO criteria, (d) no-standardized complete clinical success, (e) no-standardized absent clinical success, (f) postoperative SBP, (g) postoperative DBP, (h) postoperative mean potassium serum levels, (i) postoperative persistent hypokalemia, (j) postoperative improved hypertension, and (k) postoperative plasma renin activity. IV = inverse variance; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. Each studies is represented by a square incorporating confidence intervals represented by horizontal lines. The area of each square is proportional to the study’s weight in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysed measure of effect is plotted as a diamond with lateral points indicating confidence intervals.