Abstract

BackgroundRobotic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma is increasingly popular because of the advantage that have been proved by some researchers recently. However, prospective randomized clinical trials comparing robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy (RA) with traditional laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for pheochromocytoma are rare. The aim of this study is to compare perioperative outcomes of RA versus LA for pheochromocytoma prospectively. MethodsFrom March 2016 to April 2019, all patients with pheochromocytoma suitable for laparoscopic adrenalectomy were assigned randomly to RA or LA. The primary endpoint was the operative (exclude docking time) time. Secondary endpoints were estimated blood loss and postoperative recovery. Demographics and perioperative data were prospectively collected. ResultsA total of 140 (RA 70, LA 70) patients were enrolled in this prospective research. The following significant differences were identified in favor of RA: shorter median operative (exclude docking time) time (92.5 vs 122.5 min, P = 0.007), however, RA group has higher total hospitalization cost (8869.9 vs 4721.8 $, P < 0.001). Demographics and other perioperative outcomes were similar in both groups. The RA group showed a significant lower blood loss and operative (exclude docking time) time compared with LA group (P < 0.05) for patients with high Nor-Metanephrine (NMN). ConclusionsBoth RA and LA for pheochromocytoma are safe and effective. Patients with high NMN can benefit from less blood loss and operative time when a robotic surgery system was used, but RA has a significant higher cost.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.