Comparison of the retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal laparoscopic Adrenalectomy perioperative outcomes and safety for Pheochromocytoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the perioperative outcomes and safety of transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy with those of retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for patients with pheochromocytoma. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for studies from 1999 to 2019 to assess the perioperative outcomes and safety of transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy and the retroperitoneal approach for laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with pheochromocytoma. After data extraction and quality assessments, we used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data. RESULTS: Four retrospective studies were obtained in our meta-analysis. Patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy were associated with shorter operative time (WMD: 34.91, 95% CI: 27.02 to 42.80, I2 = 15%; p < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: 139.32, 95% CI: 125.38 to 153.26, I2 = 0, p < 0.01), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD: 2, 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.82, I2 = 82%, p < 0.01) than patients who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy. No significant differences were found in the complication rate (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.58 to 4.33, I2 = 0; p = 0.38) or in the incidence of hemodynamic crisis (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.19 to 2.94, p = 0.67) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy could achieve better perioperative outcomes than the transperitoneal approach for patients with pheochromocytoma.

Comparison of the long-term follow-up and perioperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for 4 cm to 7 cm renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of partial nephrectomy (PN) for T1b renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is controversial. The oncological outcomes, the change in postoperative renal function and the perioperative complications are unclear. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for studies from March 1998 to March 2018 for studies comparing PN to radical nephrectomy (RN) for the treatment of T1b RCC. After data extraction and quality assessment, we used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data. Then, we used Stata 12.0 to perform sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. We used the GRADE profiler to evaluate the evidence according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies involving 33,117 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS), 10-year OS, 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and 10-year RFS. The 5-year cancer-special survival (CSS) and 10-year CSS were better in RN compared to PN, respectively, at RR = 1.02, P < 0.05 and RR = 1.04, P < 0.05. PN was better than RN in the preservation of renal function (WMD = -9.15, 95% CI: - 10.30 to - 7.99, P < 0.05). The confidence level grading of the evidence was moderate for 5-year OS, 10-year OS, 5-year CSS, 10-year CSS, 5-year RFS, 10-year RFS, tumor recurrence, decline in eGFR, and postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: PN may provide comparable outcomes in terms of RFS & OS, and better renal function preservation although CSS was worse.

Transurethral resection of the prostate versus prostatic artery embolization in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficiency and safety of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for studies from May 1998 to May 2018 for studies comparing the efficiency and safety of TURP with PAE. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. After data extraction and quality assessment, we used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data. RESULTS: A total of four studies involving 506 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that the Qmax was higher in TURP group than PAE with a significant difference (WMD:4.66, 95%CI 2.54 to 6.79, P < 0.05). The postoperative QOL was lower in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -0.53, 95%CI -0.88 to - 0.18, P < 0.05). The postoperative prostate volume was significantly smaller in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -8.26, 95%CI -12.64 to - 3.88, P < 0.05). The operative time was significantly shorter in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -10.55, 95%CI -16.92 to - 4.18, P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the postoperative IPSS and complications between TURP and PAE (P > 0.05, WMD:1.56, 95%CI -0.67 to 3.78, p = 0,05, OR:1.54, 95%CI 1.00 to2.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TURP could achieve improved Qmax and QoL compared to PAE. Therefore, for patients with BPH and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), TURP was superior to PAE.