Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy

Assalia, A, Gagner, M·2004·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.4738
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) has become the procedure of choice for small benign lesions. Compared with open adrenalectomy (OA), it appears to achieve superior results in terms of recovery, cosmesis and morbidity. Methods: A Medline literature search (PubMed database, 1990–2003) was undertaken to identify relevant English language papers. Studies comparing LA with OA were categorized according to their level of evidence. Variables of outcome were analysed systematically for various adrenal pathologies. Results: No prospective randomized studies comparing LA with OA were identified. According to 20 comparative case–control studies (level 3b) and many case-series reports (level 4), the results of LA were reproducible and it has consistently been associated with faster recovery and lower morbidity than OA. The clinical outcome in hormonally active lesions was similar. The lateral transabdominal approach was the laparoscopic technique of choice; it was practised by 78·6 per cent of surgeons. Lesion sizes of 10–12 cm were cited as the upper limit for LA in many large series. Experience of 70 malignancies demonstrated the feasibility of LA, with short-term oncological results comparable to those of conventional surgery. Conclusion: Despite a lack of a high level of evidence in its favour, LA has practically replaced OA in the management of small and medium-size benign functioning and non-functioning adrenal lesions, as it has proved to be as effective as OA with less associated morbidity. Although limited experience with large and malignant tumours shows some promise, present data are insufficient for clear conclusions to be drawn.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.4738

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Assalia, A., & Gagner, M.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-08-26
Volume
91
Issue
10
Pages
1259-1274
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
DOI
10.1002/bjs.4738
OpenAlex
W4211016798
Cited by
308
References
95
FWCI
12.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.