Barczyński M, Konturek A, Gołkowski F, Cichoń S, Huszno B, Peitgen K, Walz MK. Posterior Retroperitoneoscopic Adrenalectomy: A Comparison between the Initial Experience in the Invention Phase and Introductory Phase of the New Surgical Technique.
World J Surg 2006;
31:65-71. [PMID:
17180554 DOI:
10.1007/s00268-006-0083-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Today, the posterior retroperitoneoscopic technique has become a standard procedure in adrenal surgery. The procedure allows direct access to the adrenal glands, but it seems to be difficult because of the uncommon anatomic view. This study compares the learning period of the new procedure of "posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy" in the primary invention phase and the secondary introductory phase in a different hospital 10 years later.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The analysis included 100 posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomies (PRA) and involved 50 procedures in each center. Group A consisted of 44 patients (14 males, 30 females; age: 48.7 +/- 14.5 years) undergoing surgery between 07/1994 and 8/1996 (24 right, 26 left; 8 Cushing adenomas, 14 Conn adenomas, 11 pheochromocytomas, 7 nonfunctioning adrenocortical adenomas, 10 ACTH-dependent adrenal hyperplasias). Group B consisted of 50 patients (12 males, 38 females; mean age 59.3 +/- 10.7 years) operated between 01/2004 and 01/2006 (28 right, 22 left tumors; 5 Cushing adenomas, 12 Conn adenomas, 4 pheochromocytomas, 29 nonfunctioning adrenocortical adenomas). All PRAs were performed with the patient in the prone position with 3-4 trocars placed caudally in the region of the 11th and 12th ribs. In group A, the surgical team developed the technique of PRA themselves. Before their first PRA, the surgical team of group B was introduced to the technique by the group A surgeons and afterwards were supervised continuously.
RESULTS
No serious intraoperative or postoperative complication occurred in either group. Group A experienced 7 conversions to open surgery, whereas group B had one conversion and one early reoperation due to bleeding (P = 0.03; chi(2)-test). The mean operative time was 117 +/- 41 minutes versus 83 +/- 35 minutes (group A and B respectively; P < 0.001; t-test). Estimated blood loss was similar in the two groups (47.2 +/- 46.2 ml versus 54 +/- 16.3 ml, group A versus B, respectively; P = 0.36; t-test).
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and reproducibility of the new surgical method of PRA both when it is employed in the early phase of invention, as well as when performed by surgeon-learners. After comprehensive training, the operative time and conversion rate are dramatically reduced, allowing for a short learning period.
Collapse