Posterior Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy in Adults: Results from the EUROCRINE ® Surgical Registry

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2219365/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Posterior Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy in Adults: Results from the EUROCRINE ® Surgical Registry

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2219365/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 22 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

This study aims to compare posterior retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (PRLA) and laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy (LTA) in adults using pan-European data as conflicting results have been published regarding length of hospital stay, institutional volume, and morbidity.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the surgical registry EUROCRINE^®. All patients undergoing PRLA and TLA for adrenal tumours and registered between 2015 and 2020 were included and compared for morbidity, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery.

Results

A total of 2,660 patients from 11 different countries and 69 different hospitals were analyzed and 1,696 LTA were compared to 964 PRLA. Length of hospital stay was shorter after RPLA, with less patients (N=434, 45.5%, vs N=1094, 65.0%, p<0.001) staying more than 2 days. In total, 96 patients (3.6%) developed a complication Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher. No statistical difference was found between both study groups. After propensity score matching, length of hospital stay was shorter after PRLA (>2 days 45.2% vs 63.0%, p<0.001). After multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with morbidity were age (OR 1.03), male sex (OR 1.52), and conversion to open surgery (OR 5.73).

Conclusion

This study presents the largest retrospective observational analysis comparing LTA and PRLA. Our findings confirm the shorter length of hospital stay after PRLA. Both techniques are safe leading to comparable morbidity and conversion rates.

adrenalectomy

retroperitoneal

laparoscopic

morbidity

length of hospital stay

Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy (LTA) is routinely performed to remove most adrenal tumours[1]. The keyhole approach has led to significant pain reduction, a shorter length of hospital stay, faster recovery, and better cosmetic results, without increasing morbidity or operating times compared to open surgery[2, 3]. Posterior retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (PRLA) was introduced as a feasible alternative to LTA with equal clinical outcomes[4–6]. Possible advantages of PRLA compared to LTA include less pain, shorter time to oral intake, even shorter length of hospital stay, less significant incisional hernias, and avoiding the intraperitoneal space[7–9].

A recent state of the art meta-analysis comparing both minimal access techniques found significantly less estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay[4]. Remarkably, this difference was not seen in more recent studies. Only 12 randomized and non-randomized single center studies with small sample sizes in a high-volume tertiary setting could be included in an overall analysis of 775 patients. Categorization of studies according to surgical or institutional volume could not be performed and two separate time periods as surrogate for the learning curve had to be used instead.

The conflicting results from these small sample size studies merit further evaluation, as a potentially shorter hospital stay can reduce health care costs. Moreover, surgeon and institutional volume impacts the outcome of endocrine surgery, including adrenalectomy, but minimum volume thresholds have not been set[10, 11].

This study aims to analyze PRLA versus LTA in adults using pan-European data comparing the largest number of patients to date, focusing on morbidity, length of hospital stay, and the influence of institutional volume on surgical outcome.

Study cohort

All adult patients that underwent PRLA or TLA between January 2015 and December 2020, registered in EUROCRINE®, were included in the analysis. Patients without histopathology results were excluded. Robot-assisted cases and bilateral adrenalectomies were excluded as they present subgroups with possible different advantages and morbidity, and as they were unequally divided amongst both study groups[12]. EUROCRINE® is an online, endocrine surgical quality registry that initially focused on rare endocrine tumors but has evolved into a pan-European database collecting data on all endocrine surgical procedures. It has already led to several papers in the field of adrenal surgery[12, 13]. Data entry is not mandatory, but EUROCRINE® board members are responsible for assessment of compliance on national level. Every participating center has signed a specific agreement for correct data entry. Quality control happens at local, national, and international level. The study was approved by the EUROCRINE® board and by the institutional ethics review board of Ege University, Izmir (15e2/10). Neither financial support nor any free devices were received from the industry.

Patient characteristics and other variables

Basic patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index (BMI, kg/m²)) were collected. Preoperative characteristics included hormonal status (active, inactive), type of hormonal excess (aldosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, sex steroids), suspected malignancy on imaging and/or cytology, tumor side, and tumor size (mm). Operative characteristics included surgical technique, conversion to open surgery, and reasons for conversion. Conversion from either technique to open surgery was analyzed as “intention-to-treat”. Surgical centers were classified as experienced if at least 36 adrenal surgical procedures were reported (6 cases per year for 6 years in a row), according to the European Society of Endocrine Surgeons (ESES) consensus guidelines[11]. Postoperative characteristics included length of hospital stay (defined as the number of days in hospital after surgery, dichotomized at a threshold of 2 days), 30-day morbidity, hospital readmission, and 30-day all-cause mortality. In view of the information provided from predefined and free text data fields, all complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification[14]. Also, histopathological outcomes and completeness of resection were collected.

The primary outcome was morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score of 2 or more). The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and conversion to open surgery. Sensitivity analyses were performed for patients with tumor sizes > 50 mm, patients with BMI > 30 kg/m², patients with pheochromocytoma, and according to side of the tumor as they present additional surgical and anatomical challenges. Threshold values were set based on previous studies[15–17].

Statistical analysis

The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test normality of the numerical variables. Categorical continuous variables are reported as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), and nominal variables as counts and percentages. Descriptive statistics were used to compare differences between patients that underwent PRLA and LTA, using the Chi-square test, Fisher’s Exact test, and the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.

To identify associations between morbidity with preoperative and postoperative variables, forward stepwise (likelihood ratio) logistic regression analysis was conducted. Variables with associations p < 0.100 in univariate analysis were included in multiple logistic regression model to generate odds ratios (OR). For the logistic model, OR, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and associated p values are reported.

Propensity score matching was used to account for possible confounders on outcome[18]. Propensity scores (ranging from 0 to 1, the probability of a patient assigned to PRLA or LTA) were derived using a logistic regression model including age, sex, BMI, tumour size, center experience, and hormonal excess status. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed by nearest neighbour matching within a calliper of 0.2. The balance of confounding variables between both groups of the matched data was assessed with standardized mean differences (SMD). SMD < 10% is a recommended threshold for reporting balance[18]. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0, Armonk, NY) and R 3.6.3 open-source software with ‘MatchIt’ package (http://www.R-project.org).

A total of 3,780 patients were entered in the EUROCRINE® registry from 01/2015 to 12/2020, and 2,660 patients from 11 different countries and 69 different hospitals met the criteria to be included in the study. Reasons for exclusion are summarized in Fig. 1. Of those, 1,696 underwent an LTA (63.8%) and 964 a PRLA (36.2%). Patient, hospital, preoperative, and tumour characteristics are summarized in Table 1. In the overall cohort, median age was 54 (44–64) years, female-to-male was ratio 1.4, and median BMI was 27.2 (23.8–30.9) kg/m² with 777 patients (30%) being obese. PRLA was more frequently performed in experienced centres, in female, younger, heavier patients, and in right-sided tumours. Most tumours (N = 1671, 62.8%) were hormonally active, with aldosterone (N = 767, 28.8%) being the most frequent hormone. More phaeochromocytomas and less cortisol-secreting tumours were operated via LTA (p < 0.001). Median tumour size was 33 (20–50) mm. In 844 patients (31.8%), a malignancy was suspected on imaging and/or cytology prior to surgery, whereas 206 patients (7.7%) underwent adrenal surgery for metastasis. Tumour size was the main indication for surgery in 283 patients (10.6%), with a median tumour size of 50 (40–63) mm in this subgroup. A conversion to open surgery was performed in 44 patients (1.7%), mainly because of bleeding (N = 20), difficult access (N = 12), unclear anatomy (N = 11), or adhesions (N = 5).

Surgical outcome, morbidity, and final histopathology are summarized in Table 2. In total, 96 patients (3.6%) developed a complication Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher. No statistical difference was found between both study groups. Most common complications were all-cause infections (N = 45, 1.7%), respiratory complications (N = 18, 0.7%), and haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (N = 17, 0.6%).

Length of hospital stay was longer in the LTA group, with more patients staying over 2 days (N = 1,094, 65.0% vs N = 434, 45.5%, p < 0.001). Thirteen patients (0.5%) were reoperated, and 40 patients (1.5%) had to be readmitted after discharge. The 30-day all-cause mortality was low (N = 4, 0.2%). Final histopathology showed 60 adrenocortical cancers (2.3%), 1,382 adrenocortical adenomas (52.0%), and 546 phaeochromocytomas (20.5%).

Factors associated with morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) after adrenalectomy in the univariate logistic regression analysis included age, male sex, conversion to open surgery, and center inexperience. After multivariable logistic regression analysis, age (OR 1.03, 95%CI 1.01–1.04, p = 0.002), male sex (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.01–2.29, p = 0.047), and conversion to open surgery (OR 5.73, 95%CI 2.57–12.79, p < 0.001) were the only factors associated with morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) (Table 3).

Sensitivity analyses comparing LTA and PRLA showed a longer length of hospital stay after LTA in patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² (63.7% vs 50.2%, p < 0.001), with tumour size ≥ 50 mm (71.7% vs 47.7%, p < 0.001), and with pheochromocytoma (77.9% vs 60.3%, p < 0.001). No differences in conversion rate were found in these subgroups (data not shown).

Sixty patients (39 LTA vs 21 PRLA) underwent surgery for adrenocortical cancer. PRLA was only performed in experienced centres (100%) in younger patients (44 vs 58 years old, p < 0.001) without differences in length of hospital stay (p = 0.465) or morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) (p = 0.537). Remarkably, in 185 patients (121 LTA and 64 PRLA) undergoing surgery for malignant adrenal tumours (other than adrenocortical cancer and pheochromocytomas), length of hospital stay was not statistically different (p = 0.307), but morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) significantly higher after PRLA (15.6% vs 5.0%, p = 0.014).

Subgroup analysis according to side of the tumour showed that patients with left-sided tumours were slightly younger (54 vs 55 years old, p = 0.047), heavier (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² 33.7% vs 28.0%, p = 0.030), and operated more in experienced centres (87.8% vs 83.3%, p = 0.008) when operated via PRLA. Length of hospital stay was shorter (> 2 days 41.6% vs 65.7%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) lower in the PRLA group (2.1% vs 4.4%, p = 0.035) (Supplementary Table S1). Patients with right-sided tumours were slightly younger (54 vs 55 years old, p = 0.010) and heavier (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² 33.6% vs 26.7%, p = 0.010) with smaller tumour sizes (≥ 50 mm 26.2% vs 31.9%, p = 0.037) when operated via PRLA. Length of hospital stay was shorter (> 2 days 47.4% vs 62.9%, p < 0.001) (Supplementary Table S2).

After propensity score matching, 865 patients could be included in both groups. The predefined possible confounding variables (age, sex, BMI, center experience, and hormonal status) were equally distributed (SMD < 10%) (Supplementary Table S3). Length of hospital stay was shorter after PRLA (> 2 days 45.2% vs 63.0%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between LTA and PRLA in terms of conversion rate, morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher), wound infection, reoperation, or hospital readmission (Table 4).

This European retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort compared 964 posterior retroperitoneal and 1,696 transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomies. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter after PRLA. Overall morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher) was low and comparable between both groups. Factors associated with morbidity after multivariable logistic regression included age, male sex, and conversion to open surgery. Sensitivity analysis for obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²), tumour size (≥ 50 mm), and pheochromocytoma confirmed the shorter length of hospital stay after PRLA. The statistical significance of the shorter length of hospital stay after PRLA remained after propensity score matching.

The significant reduction in length of hospital stay after PRLA compared to LTA was previously found in a recent state of the art meta-analysis analysing 775 patients from 3 randomized controlled and 9 non-randomized comparative trials[4]. Possible explanations are reduced insufflation pressures and avoiding a pneumoperitoneum in PRLA[8]. In addition, avoiding surgical access to the retroperitoneum via the lumbar region with less sensitive skin innervation, the use of only 3 ports, and avoiding intra-abdominal dissection also might result in faster postoperative recovery[8]. The previous doubts on PRLA in larger tumour sizes and male/female differences, were not confirmed by our subgroup analyses. In our series, the side of the adrenalectomy was not a risk factor for morbidity (including postoperative bleeding) in contrast with the findings of a recent meta-analysis including 780 patients with LTA.

Surgical and institutional volume have proven to impact outcomes after adrenalectomy[19, 20]. Moreover, a recent multicentre study evaluated hemodynamic instability during surgery for pheochromocytoma via LTA and PRLA and noticed a significant inter-center effect[21]. The previously mentioned meta-analysis could only include single center studies from high-volume, tertiary endocrine surgery units[4]. After propensity score matching for center experience in our European series, morbidity remained comparable, and length of hospital stay remained shorter. No modifiable risk factors for morbidity could be identified.

In case of adrenalectomy for adrenal malignancies beyond pheochromocytomas and adrenocortical cancers, no differences in length of hospital stay were found and significantly more morbidity after PRLA. This subgroup mainly includes surgery for adrenal metastases. To our knowledge, the increased morbidity after PRLA has not been previously reported and warrants further research.

To our knowledge, this is the largest, international, multicentre analyses of a recent surgical cohort based on a European quality registry. Data from high- and low-volume centres could be evaluated. Different subgroup analyses have confirmed the overall results.

Some limitations of this study are acknowledged. Data on specific surgeon experience within the high- and low- volume experienced centres is lacking. Length of hospital stay might be influenced by differences of health care reimbursement amongst the participating European countries. As other registries, EUROCRINE registry is prone to typing and coding errors, and missing data. No information on estimated blood loss, operative times, and healthcare costs was available. The type of complication data had been registered in the predefined and free text data fields for only 108 patients.

Both surgical techniques are feasible and safe and have a clear advantage on open surgery. The shorter length of hospital stay after PRLA is important as it can influence future healthcare and hospital ward planning, and it may subsequently reduce healthcare costs. However, prospective studies are necessary to confirm the health economic impact of a shorter length of hospital stay. Future studies should try to correct for surgeon experience, differences in operative times, and estimated blood loss.

Competing Interests and Funding. All authors report no conflict of interest. No funding was received.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Drs S. Vatansever and Ö. Makay had full access to all data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study conception and design: Drs K. Van Den Heede, S. Vatansever, and Ö. Makay

Acquisition of data: Drs S. Vatansever and Ö. Makay

Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors

Drafting of manuscript: Dr K. Van Den Heede

Critical revision of the manuscript: All authors

The authors have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest and have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all participating clinics in the EUROCRINE database (https://eurocrine.eu) and all members of the EUROCRINE^® council: David Scott-Coombes, Anders Bergenfelz, Thomas Clerici, Philipp Riss, Thomas Musholt, Erik Nordenström, Sam Van Slycke, Maurizio Iacobone, Laurent Brunaud, Marcin Barczynski, Konstantinos Nastos, Marco Raffaelli, Marit Helene Hansen, Christina Martinez Santos, Olov Norlén, Menno Vriens, Özer Makay, Fausto Palazzo, and Arnold Trupka.

Assalia A, Gagner M. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 1259–1274.
Brunt LM. The positive impact of laparoscopic adrenalectomy on complications of adrenal surgery. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 252–257.
Li J, Wang Y, Chang X, Han Z. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) vs open adrenalectomy (OA) for pheochromocytoma (PHEO): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46: 991–998.
Gavriilidis P, Camenzuli C, Paspala A et al. Posterior Retroperitoneoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Adrenalectomy: A Systematic Review by an Updated Meta-Analysis. World J Surg 2021; 45: 168–179.
Walz MK, Peitgen K, Hoermann R et al. Posterior retroperitoneoscopy as a new minimally invasive approach for adrenalectomy: results of 30 adrenalectomies in 27 patients. World J Surg 1996; 20: 769–774.
Mercan S, Seven R, Ozarmagan S, Tezelman S. Endoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy. Surgery 1995; 118: 1071–1075; discussion 1075–1076.
Lee CR, Walz MK, Park S et al. A comparative study of the transperitoneal and posterior retroperitoneal approaches for laparoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 2629–2634.
Barczynski M, Konturek A, Nowak W. Randomized clinical trial of posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy versus lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy with a 5-year follow-up. Ann Surg 2014; 260: 740–747; discussion 747–748.
Arezzo A, Bullano A, Cochetti G et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumours in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12: CD011668.
Gray WK, Day J, Briggs TWR et al. Volume-outcome relationship for adrenalectomy: analysis of an administrative dataset for the Getting It Right First Time Programme. Br J Surg 2021; 108: 1112–1119.
Mihai R, Donatini G, Vidal O, Brunaud L. Volume-outcome correlation in adrenal surgery-an ESES consensus statement. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2019; 404: 795–806.
Vatansever S, Nordenstrom E, Raffaelli M et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy: Results from the EUROCRINE Surgical Registry. Surgery 2022; 171: 1224–1230.
Hallin Thompson L, Makay O, Brunaud L et al. Adrenalectomy for incidental and symptomatic phaeochromocytoma: retrospective multicentre study based on the Eurocrine(R) database. Br J Surg 2021; 108: 1199–1206.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–213.
Ragavan N, Selvaraj N, Raghavan D et al. Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy: Does Size Matter? Cureus 2020; 12: e9887.
Agcaoglu O, Akbas M, Ozdemir M, Makay O. The Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Adrenalectomy: An Update. Surg Innov 2019; 26: 687–691.
Brunaud L, Bresler L, Ayav A et al. Robotic-assisted adrenalectomy: what advantages compared to lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy? Am J Surg 2008; 195: 433–438.
Zhao QY, Luo JC, Su Y et al. Propensity score matching with R: conventional methods and new features. Ann Transl Med 2021; 9: 812.
Greco F, Hoda MR, Rassweiler J et al. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy in urological centres - the experience of the German Laparoscopic Working Group. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1646–1651.
Walz MK, Alesina PF, Wenger FA et al. Posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy–results of 560 procedures in 520 patients. Surgery 2006; 140: 943–948; discussion 948–950.
Vorselaars W, Postma EL, Mirallie E et al. Hemodynamic instability during surgery for pheochromocytoma: comparing the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in a multicenter analysis of 341 patients. Surgery 2018; 163: 176–182.

Table 1

Baseline preoperative characteristics, according to surgical technique

	Total (N = 2,660)	LTA (N = 1,696, 63.8%)	PRLA (N = 964, 36.2%)	P value
Age, median (IQR), years	54 (44–64)	55 (44–64)	54 (43–62)	.003
Sex, N (%)				.003
Female	1554 (58.4)	955 (56.3)	599 (62.1)
Male	1106 (41.6)	741 (43.7)	365 (37.9)
BMI, median (IQR), kg/m2	27.2 (23.8–30.9)	26.9 (23.6–30.4)	27.5 (24.2–31.6)	.001
<30, N (%)	1815 (70.0)	1182 (72.2)	633 (66.4)	.002
≥30, N (%)	777 (30.0)	456 (27.8)	321 (33.6)
Centre experience, N (%)				.002
Experienced	2254 (84.7)	1409 (83.1)	845 (87.7)
Inexperienced	406 (15.3)	287 (27.8)	119 (12.3)
Diagnosis, N (%)				< .001
Incidental	1334 (50.2)	748 (44.2)	586 (60.8)
Adrenal-related symptoms	1323 (49.8)	945 (55.8)	378 (39.2)
Hormonal status, N (%)				.294
Active	1671 (62.8)	1078 (63.6)	593 (61.5)
Inactive	989 (37.2)	618 (36.4)	371 (38.5)
Hormonal excess, N (%)				< .001
Aldosterone	767 (28.8)	519 (30.6)	248 (25.7)
Cortisol	393 (14.8)	222 (13.1)	171 (17.7)
Catecholamines	514 (19.3)	339 (20.0)	175 (18.2)
Sex steroids	11 (0.4)	9 (0.5)	2 (0.2)
Indication for surgery, N (%)
Suspected malignancy on imaging	824 (31.0)	411 (24.2)	413 (42.8)	< .001
Suspected malignancy on cytology	20 (0.8)	14 (0.8)	6 (0.6)	.560
Surgery for size	283 (10.6)	184 (10.8)	99 (10.3)	.641
Tumour size, median (IQR), mm	50 (40–63)	50 (40–70)	44.5 (30.5–59.5)	.001
Surgery for metastasis	206 (7.7)	134 (7.9)	72 (7.5)	.689
Tumour size, median (IQR), mm	33 (20–50)	33 (20–50)	35 (20–50)	.914
<50	1767 (72.2)	1113 (70.8)	654 (74.6)	.046
≥50	682 (27.8)	459 (29.2)	223 (25.4)
Tumour side, N (%)				.039
Right	1237 (47.7)	762 (46.2)	475 (50.4)
Left	1357 (52.3)	889 (53.8)	468 (49.6)
IQR : Interquartile Range - LTA : Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Adrenalectomy - N : Number - PRLA : Posterior Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy

Table 2

Outcomes, according to surgical technique

	Total (N = 2,660)	LTA (N = 1,696, 63.8%)	PRLA (N = 964, 36.2%)	P value
Length of hospital stay, N (%), days				< .001
≤2	1108 (42.0)	589 (35.0)	519 (54.5)
>2	1528 (58.0)	1094 (65.0)	434 (45.5)
Conversion to open surgery, N (%)	44 (1.7)	32 (1.9)	12 (1.2)	.212
Morbidity, N (%)	96 (3.6)	69 (4.1)	28 (2.9)	.133
Clavien Dindo (dichotomized), N (%)				.728
Grade < 2	2164 (96.4)	1900 (95.9)	936 (97.1)
Grade ≥ 2	96 (3.6)	69 (4.1)	28 (2.9)
Reoperation, N (%)	13 (0.5)	9 (0.5)	4 (0.4)	.780
Wound infection, N (%)	32 (1.2)	23 (1.4)	9 (0.9)	.337
Hospital readmission, N (%)	40 (1.5)	29 (1.7)	11 (1.1)	.247
30-day mortality, N (%)	4 (0.2)	3 (0.2)	1 (0.1)	1.000
Histopathology, N (%)				.378
Adrenal cortical adenoma	1382 (52.0)	891 (52.5)	491 (50.9)
Adrenal cortical cancer	60 (2.3)	39 (2.3)	21 (2.2)
Phaeochromocytoma	546 (20.5)	354 (20.9)	192 (19.9)
Other benign	487 (18.3)	291 (17.2)	196 (20.3)
Other malignant	185 (7.0)	121 (7.1)	64 (6.6)
LTA : Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Adrenalectomy - N : Number - PRLA : Posterior Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy

Table 3

Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis assessing risk for Clavien Dindo Grade ≥ 2

	Univariable Logistic Regression			Multivariable Logistic Regression
	OR	95% CI	P value	OR	95% CI	P value
Age	1.03	1.01–1.04	.001	1.03	1.01–1.04	.002
Sex
Female	1			1
Male	1.65	1.10–2.49	.015	1.52	1.01–2.29	.047
Conversion
No	1			1
Yes	6.31	2.85–13.97	< .001	5.73	2.57–12.79	< .001
Centre experience
Experienced	1
Inexperienced	1.67	1.02–2.71	.040
Histopathology
Other benign	1
Other malignant	3.20	1.53–6.69	.002
ACA	1.11	0.60–2.05	.735
ACC	1.17	0.26–5.26	.842
Pheochromocytoma	1.35	0.68–2.69	.391
BMI
<30 kg/m2	1
≥30 kg/m2	1.25	0.82–1.93	.303
Tumour side
Left	1
Right	1.01	.067-1.52	.971
Tumour size
<50 mm	1
≥50 mm	1.43	0.91–2.23	.118
Hormonal status
No	1
Yes	0.80	0.53–1.21	.292
Aldosterone excess
No	1
Yes	0.72	0.44–1.16	.175
Catecholamines excess
No	1
Yes	1.16	0.71–1.90	.555
Sex steroids excess
No	1
Yes	2.66	0.34–20.99	.353
Cortisol excess
No	1
Yes	1.15	0.66–1.98	.627
Surgical technique
PRLA	1
LTA	1.42	0.91–2.22	.125
ACA : AdrenoCortical Adenoma - ACC : AdrenoCortical Cancer - CI : Confidence Interval - LTA : Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Adrenalectomy - OR : Odds Ratio - PRLA : Posterior Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy

Table 4

Outcomes after Propensity Score Matching, according to surgical technique

	LTA (N = 865)	PRLA (N = 865)	P value
Length of hospital stay, N (%), days			< .001
≤2	320 (37.0)	474 (54.8)
>2	545 (63.0)	391 (45.2)
Conversion to open surgery, N (%)	7 (0.8)	9 (1.0)	.615
Clavien Dindo (dichotomized), N (%)			.209
Grade ≥ 2	31 (3.6)	22 (2.5)
Reoperation, N (%)	5 (0.6)	3 (0.3)	.726
Wound infection, N (%)	15 (1.7)	7 (0.8)	.086
Hospital readmission, N (%)	16 (1.8)	9 (1.0)	.158
30-day mortality, N (%)	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)	1.000
LTA : Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Adrenalectomy - N : Number - PRLA : Posterior Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy

No competing interests reported.

SupplementaryTable1.docx
Supplementary Table S1. Characteristics and outcomes of 1375 LEFT-SIDED TUMORS, according to surgical technique
SupplementaryTable2.docx
Supplementary Table S2. Characteristics and outcomes of 1237 RIGHT-SIDED TUMORS, according to surgical technique
SupplementaryTable3.docx
Supplementary Table S3. Baseline characteristics before and after Propensity Score Matching, according to surgical technique

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 22 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery →

Editorial decision: Accepted
10 Jun, 2023
Reviews received at journal
24 May, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 May, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
16 May, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
02 Nov, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
31 Oct, 2022
First submitted to journal
30 Oct, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Posterior Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy in Adults: Results from the EUROCRINE ® Surgical Registry

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material And Methods

Study cohort

Patient characteristics and other variables

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1