Joseph Wagner

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a new standard of care.

OBJECTIVESnAdrenalectomy is the mainstay of treatment for adrenal tumors. A variety of surgical approaches to the adrenal gland have been described. We studied the feasibility of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA), compared laparoscopic with open adrenalectomy (OA), and studied the hemodynamic changes in patients with pheochromocytoma.nnnMETHODSnOur early experience with 20 consecutive LAs is compared with a contemporaneous, matched control cohort of 20 patients who underwent OA via a flank or subcostal incision. LA was performed via a transperitoneal approach, following a standardized surgical technique.nnnRESULTSnLA was successfully completed in 18 of 20 cases. Average operating time in the first 5 cases was 261 minutes, but, with further experience, a significant decrease in operative time was seen in the last cohort of 4 patients (155 minutes) (P = 0.0018). There was no significant difference in operative time or degree of blood loss between LA and OA groups. Patients who underwent LA required lower doses of postoperative parenteral narcotics (P = 0.0169), had a shorter hospital stay (mean 3.2 days) (P < 0.0001), and had a shorter convalescent period (mean 3.1 weeks) (P < 0.0001). Complications in the laparoscopic group (chronic port site pain in 1 patient, intra-abdominal fluid collection in another) occurred in the 2 patients who required open conversion. These 2 patients had large adrenal tumors (9 and 7 cm in diameter, respectively). LA resulted in similar hemodynamic changes as OA in patients with pheochromocytoma.nnnCONCLUSIONSnLA is a safe and effective approach in most patients with adrenal pathology. Benefits include excellent operative exposure and visualization, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and convalescent period, and improved cosmetic result. Pheochromocytoma is not a contraindication to LA. Patients with large adrenal tumors (larger than 6 cm), evidence of venous involvement, or invasion into surrounding tissue should be approached cautiously.

Was a Change to a Urologist Owned Pathology Laboratory Associated with a Change in Prostate Biopsy Use

Introduction: We assessed the impact of self‐referral to urologist owned pathology facilities on prostate biopsy practice patterns, clinical decision making and pathology service use. Methods: We reviewed a transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy database during 2 periods, including 1) August 5, 2008 to April 10, 2010 (613 days) when pathology samples were sent to an independent service laboratory, and 2) June 11, 2010 to February 13, 2012 (613 days) when samples were assessed at a urologist owned pathology laboratory. We also examined data on 3 additional preceding equal length periods before urologist ownership to determine baseline biopsy rates. Billing databases were used to identify the number of new patient visits for increased prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. The Student t‐test, and Wilcoxon rank sum and chi‐square tests were used for statistical comparisons. Results: All biopsies were obtained using a standard transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy protocol. The biopsy rate in patients with increased or abnormal digital rectal examination was 39% during the urologist owned pathology laboratory era, and 35%, 40%, 35% and 40% during the 4 preceding independent service laboratory periods of equal length. There was no statistically significant difference in patient age, rate of abnormal digital rectal examination or indications for repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy among the periods. The prostate cancer detection rate was 45% in the independent service laboratory era and 46% in the urologist owned pathology laboratory era. Conclusions: Self‐referral of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy specimens to urologist owned pathology facilities was not associated with a significant variation in the biopsy rate, the repeat biopsy rate, indications triggering repeat biopsy or the cancer detection rate.