Cargando…

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the main treatment for pheochromocytoma (PHEO). Although open surgery (OS) has been shown to be safe and feasible, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for PHEO remain controversial due to the uncertain effects of pneumoperitoneum on haemodynamics an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fu, Sheng-Qiang, Wang, Si-Yuan, Chen, Qiang, Liu, Yu-Tang, Li, Zhi-Long, Sun, Ting
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32711496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00824-6
_version_ 1783563176770535424
author Fu, Sheng-Qiang
Wang, Si-Yuan
Chen, Qiang
Liu, Yu-Tang
Li, Zhi-Long
Sun, Ting
author_facet Fu, Sheng-Qiang
Wang, Si-Yuan
Chen, Qiang
Liu, Yu-Tang
Li, Zhi-Long
Sun, Ting
author_sort Fu, Sheng-Qiang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the main treatment for pheochromocytoma (PHEO). Although open surgery (OS) has been shown to be safe and feasible, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for PHEO remain controversial due to the uncertain effects of pneumoperitoneum on haemodynamics and the complexity of the tumour itself. This study was performed to compare the treatment outcomes of OS with those of LS for patients with PHEO. METHODS: A systematic search through November 11, 2019, was conducted. All studies comparing outcomes of LS and OS for PHEO were included according to eligibility criteria. This meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software, version 5.3, and STATA software, version 12.0. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LS was associated with lower rates of intraoperative haemodynamic instability (IHD) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.00, P = 0.05], less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 115.27 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 128.54 to − 101.99, P < 0.00001], lower blood transfusion rates [OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.52, P < 0.00001], earlier ambulation (WMD = − 1.57 d, 95% CI: − 1.97 to − 1.16, P < 0.00001) and food intake (WMD = − 0.98 d, 95% CI: − 1.36 to − 0.59, P < 0.00001), shorter drainage tube indwelling time (WMD = − 0.51 d, 95% CI: − 0.96 to − 0.07, P = 0.02) and postoperative stay (WMD = − 3.17 d, 95% CI: − 4.76 to − 1.58, P < 0.0001), and lower overall complication rates (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.88, P = 0.01). However, no significant differences in operative time, postoperative blood pressure control, rates of severe complications, postoperative hypotension or cardiovascular disease (CVD) were found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LS is safe and effective for PHEO resection. Compared with OS, LS caused less IHD, providing an equal chance to cure hypertension while also yielding a faster and better postoperative recovery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7382066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73820662020-07-27 Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis Fu, Sheng-Qiang Wang, Si-Yuan Chen, Qiang Liu, Yu-Tang Li, Zhi-Long Sun, Ting BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the main treatment for pheochromocytoma (PHEO). Although open surgery (OS) has been shown to be safe and feasible, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for PHEO remain controversial due to the uncertain effects of pneumoperitoneum on haemodynamics and the complexity of the tumour itself. This study was performed to compare the treatment outcomes of OS with those of LS for patients with PHEO. METHODS: A systematic search through November 11, 2019, was conducted. All studies comparing outcomes of LS and OS for PHEO were included according to eligibility criteria. This meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software, version 5.3, and STATA software, version 12.0. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LS was associated with lower rates of intraoperative haemodynamic instability (IHD) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.00, P = 0.05], less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 115.27 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 128.54 to − 101.99, P < 0.00001], lower blood transfusion rates [OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.52, P < 0.00001], earlier ambulation (WMD = − 1.57 d, 95% CI: − 1.97 to − 1.16, P < 0.00001) and food intake (WMD = − 0.98 d, 95% CI: − 1.36 to − 0.59, P < 0.00001), shorter drainage tube indwelling time (WMD = − 0.51 d, 95% CI: − 0.96 to − 0.07, P = 0.02) and postoperative stay (WMD = − 3.17 d, 95% CI: − 4.76 to − 1.58, P < 0.0001), and lower overall complication rates (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.88, P = 0.01). However, no significant differences in operative time, postoperative blood pressure control, rates of severe complications, postoperative hypotension or cardiovascular disease (CVD) were found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LS is safe and effective for PHEO resection. Compared with OS, LS caused less IHD, providing an equal chance to cure hypertension while also yielding a faster and better postoperative recovery. BioMed Central 2020-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7382066/ /pubmed/32711496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00824-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Fu, Sheng-Qiang
Wang, Si-Yuan
Chen, Qiang
Liu, Yu-Tang
Li, Zhi-Long
Sun, Ting
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title_full Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title_short Laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
title_sort laparoscopic versus open surgery for pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32711496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00824-6
work_keys_str_mv AT fushengqiang laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis
AT wangsiyuan laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis
AT chenqiang laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis
AT liuyutang laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis
AT lizhilong laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis
AT sunting laparoscopicversusopensurgeryforpheochromocytomaametaanalysis