The features of modern medicine consist of minimal invasiveness and promoting the quality of life. The Niigata University Urological group in Japan performed the first successful laparoscopic removal of the adrenal tumor in 1992 [1]. That success was quickly followed by the Tokyo [2], Hamamatsu [3], Kyoto [4], and Kitazato [5] groups, all of which were located in Japan. Immediately after the successful laparoscopic adrenalectomy, we realized that, compared wi th open adrena lec tomy, l aparoscopic adrenalectomy was much less invasive, induced much less postoperative pain, and involved a much shorter convalescence, resulting in quicker recuperation to preoperative daily activity [6]. Therefore, laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become widely accepted around the world and is popular today. The incidence of adrenal incidentaloma has increased with the advent of many innovative diagnostic tools. Do we have to remove all adrenal incidentalomas? Obviously the answer is “no.” In that case what are the indications and limitations of laparoscopic adrenalectomy? According to Michel et al. [7], the indications of laparoscopic adrenalectomy for incidentalomas include the following: 1) functioning tumors; 2) tumors measuring larger than 4 cm in diameter or growing in size during the follow-up course; 3) tumors showing necrosis, bleeding, or irregular contour on computed tomography; and 4) cases with the higher concentration of serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate. I presume that most of the laparoscopists performing adrenalectomy will agree with the authors’ criteria, although exact size of the tumor as an indication is varied. In our observation of 210 cases with incidentalomas [8], 14 cases (6.7%) were malignant. All of the tumors were larger than 6.5 cm in diameter. The fourth category suggests that pre-Cushing’s syndrome can exist among the patients with incidentaloma, even if they do not show clinical symptoms of Cushing's syndrome despite serum or urinary abnormal endocrinologic data. Up until the present time, nobody knows whether these cases will develop Cushing's syndrome in due course. Besides the previous indications, there are some technical limitations in laparoscopic adrenalectomy. These include marked adhesion and infiltration surrounding the tumor probably due to previous surgery or malignancy, and extreme obesity (more than 35 in the body mass index). The indication for pheochromocytoma [9] was controversial because pneumoretroperitoneum or pneumoperitoneum caused great or unstable increase of the blood pressure and because of possible multiple tumors. With the advance of the cardiocirculatory control technique and the image diagnostic procedures, at present most laparoscopists include pheochromocytoma as an indication. However, laparoscopic removal of adrenal malignancy is still controversial, because these malignancies are usually large and intraoperative dissemination or port site recurrence is always possible. Although Heniford [10] reported 10 successful cases, with only one failure in malignancy accompanied by caval invasion, I personally do not perform laparoscopic removal of a malignancy that is mostly large and might be associated with lymph node metastases. The retroperitoneal approach to the adrenal gland showed less postoperative complications in one report [11]. However, I believe that both approaches are excellent and that the outcomes are just a matter of the learning curve. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is one of the most prominent areas in which urologists have pioneered and significantly contributed to the progress of medicine for the past decade. I recommend that all the urologic laparoscopists acquire full command of laparoscopic adrenalectomy.
Read full abstract