Open Versus Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine the role of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) in the surgical management of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on January 2, 2015 using PubMed. Article selection proceeded according to PRISMA criteria. Studies comparing open adrenalectomy (OA) to LA for ACC and including at least 10 cases per each surgical approach were included. Odds ratio (OR) was used for all binary variables, and weight mean difference (WMD) was used for the continuous parameters. Pooled estimates were calculated with the fixed-effect model, if no significant heterogeneity was identified; alternatively, the random-effect model was used when significant heterogeneity was detected. Main demographics, surgical outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Nine studies published between 2010 and 2014 were deemed eligible and included in the analysis, all of them being retrospective case-control studies. Overall, they included 240 LA and 557 OA cases. Tumors treated with laparoscopy were significantly smaller in size (WMD -3.41 cm; confidence interval [CI] -4.91, -1.91; p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of them (80.8 %) more at a localized (I-II) stage compared with open surgery (67.7 %) (odds ratio [OR] 2.8; CI 1.8, 4.2; p < 0.001). Hospitalization time was in favor of laparoscopy, with a WMD of -2.5 days (CI -3.3, -1.7; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall recurrence rate between LA and OA (relative risk [RR] 1.09; CI 0.83, 1.43; p = 0.53), whereas development of peritoneal carcinomatosis was higher for LA (RR 2.39; CI 1.41, 4.04; p = 0.001). No difference could be found for time to recurrence (WMD -8.2 months; CI -18.2, 1.7; p = 0.11), as well as for cancer specific mortality (OR 0.68; CI 0.44, 1.05; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: OA should still be considered the standard surgical management of ACC. LA can offer a shorter hospital stay and possibly a faster recovery. Therefore, this minimally invasive approach can certainly play a role in this setting, but it should be only offered in carefully selected cases to avoid jeopardizing the oncological outcome.

Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. RESULTS: Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.