eISSN: 2299-0054
ISSN: 1895-4588
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
Current issue Archive Videoforum Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

 
3/2022
vol. 17
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
Review paper

Peri- and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in nonobese versus obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhongyou Xia
1, 2
,
Haolin Liu
3
,
Peng Gu
4
,
Zonghai He
4
,
Jinze Li
3
,
Fei Yang
5
,
Hongtao Tu
2
,
Ji Wu
1
,
Xiaodong Liu
4

1.
Department of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, Sichuan, China
2.
Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China
3.
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
4.
Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China
5.
Department of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
Videosurgery Miniinv 2022; 17 (3): 430–440
Online publish date: 2022/05/19
Article file
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
 

Introduction

With the development of modern imaging technologies such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an increasing number of adrenal tumors, especially incidentalomas, have been detected [1, 2]. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) was first performed for adrenal tumors by Gagner et al. [3] in 1992 and has been gradually performed for resecting functional, non-functional, and malignant adrenal tumors, thereby replacing open surgery as the gold standard for managing adrenal tumors [46]. Laparoscopic surgery has shorter hospital stay, better trauma management, faster recovery, and lower costs than open surgery [5, 7]. US national surveys have also confirmed that LA has significantly lower perioperative morbidity than open adrenalectomy [8]. However, patients who have undergone previous abdominal surgery, especially kidney, liver, and spleen surgery, often have adhesions in the adrenal gland region, and perioperative risk is significantly increased during trans-peritoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (TLA) [9, 10]. Shortly after Gagner et al.’s study, Mercan and Mandressi proposed retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (RLA) as an alternative to TLA because it can directly and rapidly enter the surgical area without mobilizing intraperitoneal organs [11, 12]. However, there are still different perspectives regarding the treatment of adrenal tumors by TLA and RLA in published meta-analyses [13, 14].

The incidence rate of obesity is increasing annually, including morbid obesity caused by Cushing’s syndrome, which has become a global concern [3, 4, 15]. Obesity is often associated with high blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, which increases the risk of surgical complications such as adrenalectomy [16]. However, various studies have yielded conflicting results, and some studies have even found that obese patients may benefit from minimally invasive surgery [17, 18].

Nevertheless, to date, no relevant studies have confirmed the safety of LA in obese patients and determined the most beneficial surgical approach for obese patients. To fill this gap, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate peri- and postoperative outcomes of LA in patients with adrenal tumors.

Aim

The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in nonobese versus obese patients in terms of perioperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes.

Material and methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline [19].

Literature search and eligibility criteria

We systematically searched papers published in PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Science databases and Cochrane Library. The time range of the literature search was up until July 2021. No language restriction was applied. Search items included “laparoscopic adrenalectomy”, “adrenal tumor”, “body mass index (BMI)”, and “obesity”. Additionally, some research references were searched manually. Our meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria (Figure 1) [20].

Figure 1

Flow diagram of studies identified, included, and excluded

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g001_min.jpg

The inclusion criteria of the study were as follows: (1) studies with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies, or cohort studies; (2) patients with adrenal tumors requiring LA, including RLA or TLA; (3) comparing nonobese with obese patients; and (4) full articles containing at least one outcome parameter such as operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), open conversion rate, and total complications. The exclusion criteria were as follows: repetitive reviews, letters, case reports, studies unrelated to the subject matter, duplicated studies based on the same patients, or studies with no detailed data.

According to the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, the procedure was independently completed by three researchers and differences between investigators observed in the process were resolved through negotiation.

Data extraction

All relevant data were extracted by four authors independently. The researchers used standard tables to extract all collected interest outcomes for each included study: first author’s name, country, study design, sample size, intervention, age, and tumor size. Surgical outcomes included OT, LOS, EBL, conversion rate, and total complications. In addition, some of the data in the study were converted to a mean ± standard deviation, and the mean ± standard deviation of overweight with normal body weight was combined [21, 22].

Quality evaluation

Based on preliminary search results, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies [23]. According to the evaluation of the three question areas of selection, comparability, and exposure in the scale, a score of more than six stars can be considered to indicate high-quality research.

The above steps were completed by two of us (ZY.X and HL.L) independently. After discussion, the disagreements were resolved by the senior author (XD.L).

Statistical analysis

Review Manager Version 5.4, software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 16 (StataCorp LP, University City, Texas, USA) were used for statistical analysis. The Q test and χ2 test were used to verify the heterogeneity between the included studies. According to the test results of heterogeneity, if I2 ≥ 50% or p < 0.1, the random-effect model was used for pooled estimates. Otherwise, fixed-effects models were used for the analyses. I2 > 50% indicates significant heterogeneity between studies. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. P < 0.05 was defined as statistically significant.

Results

Description of studies

In total, 319 records were retrieved from five databases. After reading the title and name of the first author, 143 duplicate studies were excluded. After further analyzing the abstract, research topics, and keywords, 46 records unrelated to the research topics were excluded. After reading the full text, 37 studies were excluded. Finally, seven retrospective studies and one prospective comparative trial with 1721 patients were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1) [15, 2430].

Baseline data, including the first author’s name, age, country, study design, and intervention model, are presented in Table I.

Table I

Basic characteristics and quality assessment of enrolled studies

StudyCountryDesignInterventionAge [years]Tumor sizeApproachQuality scores
Nonobese (N)/Obese (N)Nonobese/Obese
Inaishi et al. [29]JapanRetrospective comparative trial70/2851.7 ±40.1/42.7 ±48.43.4 ±3.6/2.7 ±4.5Transperitoneal6
Zonča et al. [30]Czech RepublicRetrospective comparative trial96/4151 ±15/53 ±145.4 ±2.3/4.7 ±1.6Retroperitoneal7
Dancea et al. [26]USARetrospective comparative trial31/4956.1 ±14/50.1 ±134.3 ±2.0/4.5 ±3.1Transperitoneal6
Rodríguez-Hermosa et al. [24]SpainProspective comparative trial70/9057.0 ±11.6/48.5 ±13.95.0 ±2.9/5.0 ±2.4Transperitoneal8
Hu et al. [15]ChinaRetrospective comparative trial290/6348.88 ±12.35/46.11 ±11.832.74 ±1.30/2.67 ±1.49Retroperitoneal7
Ortenzi et al. [28]ItalyRetrospective comparative trial149/79_4.3 ±1.9/4.3 ± 1.8Transperitoneal6
Kazaryan et al. [25]NorwayProspective comparative trial133/3948.8 ±43.4/55.3 ±43.95.2 ±7.6/2.7 ± 3.4Transperitoneal7
Pędziwiatr et al. [27]PolandRetrospective comparative trial346/12254.2 ±15.0/55.7 ±11.34.3 ±2.1/4.2 ±2.9Transperitoneal6

Quality assessment

Based on the NOS scoring rules, we have listed the final study quality scores in Table I.

Perioperative outcomes

Tumor size

There were eight studies that reported tumor size [15, 2430]. Due to the heterogeneity test outcome (I2 = 41%), we used a fixed effect model. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI: –0.08 to 0.38, p = 0.20, Figure 2).

Figure 2

Forest plot and meta-analysis of tumor size between nonobese and obese

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g002_min.jpg

Operation time

Eight studies reported the OT, and 1721 patients were enrolled [15, 2430]. The heterogeneity among the studies was within the acceptable range (I2 = 68%, p = 0.003), and the random effects model was used. The meta-analysis results indicated that compared with the obese group, the nonobese group had shorter OT, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (WMD = –10.02, 95% CI: –19.16 to 0.87, p = 0.03, Figure 3). Moreover, subgroup analysis showed that a shorter OT was related to the retroperitoneal approach in the nonobese group (WMD = –23.41, 95% CI: –34.66 to –12.17, p = 0.0001, Figure 3).

Figure 3

Forest plot and meta-analysis of operating time between nonobese and obese

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g003_min.jpg

Estimated blood loss

Seven studies reported on EBL and involved 1579 patient samples [15, 24, 2630]. The heterogeneity among the studies was relatively high (I2 = 82.0%, p = 0.00001), and the random effects model was applicable. No significant difference was observed between the two groups (WMD = –13.15, 95% CI: –35.92 to 9.63, p = 0.26, Figure 4). According to the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in EBL in either RLA or TLA between the obese and nonobese groups (RLA (WMD = –1.63, 95% CI: –20.73 to 17.48, p = 0.87), TLA (WMD = –18.46, 95% CI: –47.51 to 10.6), p = 0.21, Figure 4).

Figure 4

Forest plot and meta-analysis of estimated blood loss between nonobese and obese

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g004_min.jpg

Conversion rate

Seven studies reported conversion rate, and a total of 1579 patients were enrolled [15, 24, 2630]. Due to the heterogeneity test outcome (I2 = 0%), we used a fixed effect model. The results of the meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.60; p = 0.40, Figure 5 A).

Figure 5

Forest plots of outcomes: A – conversion rate, B – complications

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g005_min.jpg

Postoperative indicators

Length of hospital stay

LOS was recorded in eight studies [15, 2430]. Because of significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 72%, p = 0.0009), the random effects model was used to combine the results. According to the meta-analysis results, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (WMD = –0.04, 95% CI: –0.47 to 0.39, p = 0.86, Figure 6). The subgroup analysis showed that the LOS of RLA was shorter in the nonobese group than in the obese group (WMD = –0.52, 95% CI: –0.90 to 0.14, p = 0.007, Figure 6), but no significant difference was observed between the two groups with respect to TLA (WMD = 0.13, 95% CI: –0.40 to 0.65, p = 0.64, Figure 6).

Figure 6

Forest plot and meta-analysis of length of hospital stay between nonobese and obese

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g006_min.jpg

Perioperative complications

In the statistical analysis, the complication data were obtained from 8 studies [15, 2430] (Figure 5 B). Because of low heterogeneity (I2 = 20%), we used a fixed effect model. No significant difference between the nonobese and obese groups was found (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; p = 0.06).

Sensitivity analysis

Based on the high heterogeneity of OT, EBL, and LOS, we performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of each study’s data on the final outcomes. Studies were removed one by one, and we found that OT and LOS were stable (Figures 7 A, C). However, EBL in Ortenzi et al.’s study was possibly the cause of the high heterogeneity in the EBL index (Figure 7 B).

Figure 7

Sensitivity analysis: A – operating time, B – estimated blood loss, C – length of hospital stay

/f/fulltexts/WIITM/47066/WIITM-17-47066-g007_min.jpg

Discussion

LA has been considered a substitute for traditional open surgery in the past decade by numerous studies [58]. Moreover, a study showed that laparoscopy was also safe and feasible for the treatment of large adrenal tumors [31]. However, the increase in the incidence rate of obesity, which is generally considered a major factor for increasing complications, particularly wound and septic complications [30], poses new challenges to LA. In addition, LA (including retroperitoneal or trans-peritoneal approaches) remains controversial in obese patients. Although a recent meta-analysis based on the results of five studies performed by Danwang et al. showed that obesity was not associated with surgical complications [18], this meta-analysis did not provide a comprehensive analysis of perioperative results and did not determine the clinical benefits of LA in obese patients. Based on the above reasons, we performed the current meta-analysis to analyze perioperative results of LA in obese and nonobese patients.

We performed an evidence-based medicine analysis of eight published studies that explored peri- and postoperative outcomes of LA in obese patients. Our results were consistent with those of previous studies [18, 24, 29], which found no difference in most perioperative outcomes, except OT, and postoperative outcomes between obese and nonobese patients who underwent LA. Some studies also found that obesity did not result in worse outcomes in patients undergoing other minimally invasive procedures [16, 32, 33].

Regarding OT, our meta-analysis showed that the nonobese group had shorter OT than the obese group, which was consistent with the results of several previous studies. However, in the subgroup analysis, we found that the OT of obese patients who underwent TLA was not prolonged, but the OT of nonobese patients was slightly shorter than that of obese patients when RLA was performed. Kazaryan et al. also found that OT was moderately higher in obese patients than in nonobese patients, and it had a weak but significant correlation with BMI [25]. The most significant advantage of retroperitoneal endoscopy is that the endoscope enters the gland directly (especially when using the dorsal approach), while the massive fat around the gland impairs exposure and the right adrenal gland is partially retrocaval and drains directly to the inferior vena cava through a short central vein, making it more difficult for surgeons to operate, thus prolonging OT [25, 34]. There are also inconsistent reports in the literature. Some authors have confirmed the feasibility of LA in obese patients and revealed that BMI may have no effect on OT [24, 27, 28]. This could be explained by the three-dimensional vision system, which could improve the depth of perception, and some surgeons usually place additional trocar(s) when trying to obtain a good surgical field of vision. Furthermore, the introduction of energy devices may minimize the difficulty of hemostasis in heavy adipose tissues [29, 35]. In addition, the operator’s experience and previous history of abdominal surgery were interfering factors [24].

Blood loss has always been a major concern among clinicians. In our meta-analysis, the EBL of the two groups was not statistically different. However, the heterogeneity of the results was high. Sensitivity analysis showed that the heterogeneity may be because of the use of different hemostatic devices by Ortenzi et al., but ultrasonic and clip hemostasis methods are not effective in obese patients [28]. In addition, subgroup analyses indicated that both TLA and RLA in the nonobese and obese groups had similar EBL. It seems that there is a difference between this and our conventional ideas. However, the size of the surgical wound is small in both groups, and sufficient extra space in the abdominal cavity is created by the pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy so that the operator can thoroughly stop the bleeding [25]. The application of good energy devices is also a reason for reduced bleeding [29]. Certainly, laparoscopic surgery is performed by a team of experienced surgeons.

According to our meta-analysis, seven articles reported the conversion rate, and no significant difference between the nonobese and obese groups was found (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.60, p = 0.40, Figure 4 A). According to literature reports, open conversion is often related to obesity, intraoperative bleeding, adhesion, excessive tumor size, and inexperienced doctors [36, 37]. Most studies have also shown that there is no significant correlation between obesity and intraoperative conversion to open surgery [15, 2428, 38, 39]. The following factors may further explain these results. First, there is a certain difference between obesity estimated by BMI and visceral fat mass in patients; even if BMI is in the normal range, its high visceral fat content affects postoperative outcomes [40]. Second, most conversions to open surgery occur in the learning curve. Third, conversion may be mainly affected by blood loss and subsequent poor outcomes [29, 41].

We confirmed that there is no significant difference in the LOS between the two groups, which is consistent with the outcomes of all TLAs included in the literature. The opposite result was obtained in the subgroup analysis: the LOS of obese patients after RLA was longer than that of nonobese patients because of the small sample size and because TLA is usually adopted by surgeons as the first choice during the procedure. Longer LOS might have resulted owing to the higher number of postoperative complications and the lower ability of obese patients to recover from surgery. According to the literature, obese patients have a high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and a corresponding increase in the risk for cardiovascular complications, pulmonary insufficiency, and pneumonia [15]. Therefore, even if it is a minimally invasive technology, its effect on the functional recovery of patients after surgery cannot be ignored.

Regarding overall complication rates, our meta-analysis did not show any specific differences between the two groups. Based on a recent subgroup analysis of Clavien-Dindo grade classification of complications [18], we did not observe any statistically significant difference. Obese patients may have higher ASA scores than nonobese patients. However, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BMI could not be considered an independent risk factor for postoperative complications [15]. In contrast, the methods to assess complications have been continuously amended, and points of indications have also been revised. These factors may obscure the effect of obesity. However, Dancea et al. found that obese patients have relatively high postoperative complication rates. Because of the heavy burden on the greater omentum in obese patients, surgeons prefer to mobilize the splenic flexure to reach the left adrenal gland, which can easily damage the spleen during left-sided TLA, and 4 cases of spleen damage were observed in this cohort [26]. A poor intraoperative visual field in obese patients, previous abdominal surgery, and lack of operator’s experience are also factors for complications [24, 41].

Our meta-analysis strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [42]. However, this study had some limitations. First, most of the included studies were primarily retrospective, and the level of evidence in evidence-based medicine was not sufficiently high; thus, the conclusions of this meta-analysis need to be treated with caution. Second, few articles included the study of RLA for obese patients, and there may have been selection bias. Third, the number of included studies was relatively small. Finally, significant heterogeneity existed in some evaluation indices.

Conclusions

Based on current evidence, this meta-analysis suggests that the LA is feasible and effective in patients with obesity. But the conclusions need to be treated with caution due to high heterogeneity. This conclusion needs to be verified by a prospective cohort study with a larger sample size and a more rigorous design.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Xiaoying Yang for providing continuous encouragement to Dr. Zhongyou Xia to pursue his career in medicine.

This article was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81802548, 81860451), Yunnan Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 202001AW070001), Yunnan Health Training Project of High-Level Talents (for Peng Gu, Grant No. H2018070), Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan-Kunming Medical University Joint Foundation (Grant No. 2019FE001-136), Scientific Research Project of Yunnan Provincial Educational Department (Grant No. 2018JS208). Funding for young doctors (for Peng Gu) was obtained from the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (Grant No. 2017BS016), the Project of Nanchong Science and Technology Bureau (19SXHZ0051), Joint project of Kunming Medical University (Grant No. 202101AY070001-014). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Gheorghisan-Galateanu AA, Carsote M, Valea A. Incidentaloma: from general practice to specific endocrine frame. J Pak Med Assoc 2017; 67: 917-22.

2 

Bourdeau I, El Ghorayeb N, Gagnon N, et al. Management of endocrine disease: differential diagnosis, investigation and therapy of bilateral adrenal incidentalomas. Eur J Endocrinol 2018; 179: R57-67.

3 

Gagner M, Lacroix A, Bolté E. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome and pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1033.

4 

Ciarrocchi A, Amicucci G. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in obese patients: a meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies. J Minim Access Surg 2014; 10: 4-9.

5 

Autorino R, Bove P, De Sio M, et al. Open versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenocortical carcinoma: a meta-analysis of surgical and oncological outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 1195-202.

6 

Elfenbein DM, Scarborough JE, Speicher PJ, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open adrenalectomy: results from American College of Surgeons-National Surgery Quality Improvement Project. J Surg Res 2013; 184: 216-20.

7 

Hallfeldt KK, Mussack T, Trupka A, et al. Laparoscopic lateral adrenalectomy versus open posterior adrenalectomy for the treatment of benign adrenal tumors. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 264-7.

8 

Lee J, El-Tamer M, Schifftner T, et al. Open and laparoscopic adrenalectomy: analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 206: 953-9; discussion 9-61.

9 

Economopoulos KP, Phitayakorn R, Lubitz CC, et al. Should specific patient clinical characteristics discourage adrenal surgeons from performing laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy? Surgery 2016; 159: 240-8.

10 

Raffaelli M, De Crea C, Bellantone R. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Gland Surg 2019; 8: S41-52.

11 

Mandressi A, Buizza C, Antonelli D, et al. Retroperitoneoscopy. Ann Urol (Paris) 1995; 29: 91-6.

12 

Mercan S, Seven R, Ozarmagan S, et al. Endoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy. Surgery 1995; 118: 1071-5; discussion 5-6.

13 

Meng C, Du C, Peng L, et al. Comparison of posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy versus lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 667985.

14 

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: 168-79.

15 

Hu Q, Hang Z, Ho Y, et al. Impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Urol Int 2015; 95: 361-6.

16 

Feder MT, Patel MB, Melman A, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in obese and nonobese patients: outcomes stratified by body mass index. J Urol 2008; 180: 79-83.

17 

Rizvi SJ, Garg N, Khemchandani S, et al. Donor and recipient outcomes of retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in obese versus nonobese donors: a prospective study. Transplant Proc 2020; 52: 1661-4.

18 

Danwang C, Agbor VN, Bigna JJ. Obesity and postoperative outcomes of the patients with laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2020; 20: 194.

19 

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-12.

20 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71.

21 

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 13.

22 

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135.

23 

Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-5.

24 

Rodríguez-Hermosa JI, Planellas-Giné P, Cornejo L, et al. Comparison of outcomes between obese and nonobese patients in laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a cohort study. Dig Surg 2021; 38: 237-46.

25 

Kazaryan AM, Marangos IP, Røsok BI, et al. Impact of body mass index on outcomes of laparoscopic adrenal surgery. Surg Innov 2011; 18: 358-67.

26 

Dancea HC, Obradovic V, Sartorius J, et al. Increased complication rate in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy. JSLS 2012; 16: 45-9.

27 

Pędziwiatr M, Major P, Pisarska M, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy in morbidly obese patients is not associated with worse short-term outcomes. Int J Urol 2017; 24: 59-63.

28 

Ortenzi M, Balla A, Ghiselli R, et al. Minimally invasive approach to the adrenal gland in obese patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2019; 28: 285-91.

29 

Inaishi T, Kikumori T, Takeuchi D, et al. Obesity does not affect peri- and postoperative outcomes of transabdominal laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Nagoya J Med Sci 2018; 80: 21-8.

30 

Zonča P, Bužga M, Ihnát P, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy in obese patients: is it suitable? Obes Surg 2015; 25: 1203-8.

31 

Sahbaz NA, Dural AC, Akarsu C, et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in large adrenal masses. Videosurgery Mininv 2020; 15: 106-11.

32 

Miao L, Chen H, Xiang J, et al. A high body mass index in esophageal cancer patients is not associated with adverse outcomes following esophagectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2015; 141: 941-50.

33 

Liu M, Xing J, Arslan A, et al. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer. Medicine 2019; 98: e17991.

34 

Wang Y, Yang Z, Chang X, et al. Right laparoscopic adrenalectomy vs. left laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Videosurgery Miniinv 2022; 17: 9-19.

35 

Arezzo A, Vettoretto N, Francis NK, et al. The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 3251-74.

36 

Vidal O, Saavedra-Perez D, Martos JM, et al. Risk factors for open conversion of lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: retrospective cohort study of the Spanish Adrenal Surgery Group (SASG). Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 3690-5.

37 

Paun D, Petris R, Ganescu R, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in obese patients. Maedica 2015; 10: 231-6.

38 

Denost Q, Quintane L, Buscail E, et al. Short- and long-term impact of body mass index on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15: 463-9.

39 

Campeggi A, Xylinas E, Ploussard G, et al. Impact of body mass index on perioperative morbidity, oncological, and functional outcomes after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2012; 80: 576-84.

40 

Tsujinaka S, Konishi F, Kawamura YJ, et al. Visceral obesity predicts surgical outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for sigmoid colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1757-65; discussion 65-7.

41 

Kamoun S, Alves A, Bretagnol F, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese and nonobese patients: a case-matched study of 180 patients. Am J Surg 2009; 198: 450-5.

42 

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100.

Copyright: © 2022 Fundacja Videochirurgii This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
  
Quick links
© 2022 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.