Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 2760–2764 | Cite as

Pheochromocytoma does not increase risk in laparoscopic adrenalectomy

  • Peter Nau
  • Sebastian Demyttenaere
  • Peter Muscarella
  • Vimal Narula
  • Jeffrey W. Hazey
  • E. Christopher Ellison
  • W. Scott Melvin



Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) has become the standard approach to an adrenal mass. This technique provides for decreased convalescence, less postoperative pain, and improved cosmesis. The use of LA for pheochromocytoma (PHE) has been questioned due to concerns of increased morbidity and negative hemodynamic sequelae. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LA for PHE with the results of LA for other adrenal pathologies.


A retrospective chart review was performed for an 11-year period from July 1997 to December 2008. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and outcomes were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0. Statistical significance was defined as a p value less than 0.05.


A total of 102 LA procedures were completed for 95 patients. The data for 33 PHE cases were compared with the data for 69 non-PHE cases (26 adenomas, 14 aldosteronomas, 5 cortisol-secreting tumors, 5 multinodular hyperplasias, and 19 other disorders). Five LA procedures were converted to open surgery. Four of these conversions involved patients with PHE (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the mean estimated blood loss (p = 0.2) or operative time (p = 0.1) between the two groups. The frequency of intraoperative hypertension and hypotension did not differ between the PHE and non-PHE cohorts. The complication rate was 7.5% for the PHE group and 6.9% for the non-PHE group (p = 0.7). The patients with PHE had a longer postoperative hospital stay (3.6 vs 2.3 days; p < 0.001) and overall hospital stay (4.9 vs 2.6 days; p < 0.001). Time in the intensive care unit (1.1 vs 0.1 days; p < 0.001) and time until oral intake (1.5 vs 1.0 days; p = 0.02) also were increased in the PHE population. There was one death in the PHE group secondary to congestive heart failure.


Concerns of increased morbidity related to a laparoscopic approach for patients with a diagnosis of PHE are unfounded. In this series, the only disparity in outcomes between the two groups was an increased conversion rate with PHE.


Adrenalectomy Laparoscopic surgery Laparoscopy Pheochromocytoma 

Laparoscopic approaches to intraabdominal pathology were first introduced by Semm [1] in 1983 with his description of the pelviscopic appendectomy. The ensuing decade witnessed an exponential growth in the indications for minimally invasive techniques in general surgery [2, 3, 4, 5]. Laparoscopy for benign surgical disease of the adrenal gland currently is widely considered to be the gold standard approach [2]. Benefits over open adrenalectomy include decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and convalescence with improved cosmesis.

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for pheochromocytoma (PHE) has been challenged due to concerns of increased morbidity and adverse hemodynamic sequelae [3, 4]. These vasoactive tumors tend to be larger, with increased vascularity, complicating laparoscopic dissection.

Some authors have proposed a selective application of the laparoscopic approach for PHE [5]. In response, several institutions have published their experience with LA for PHE [6, 7, 8]. Early discussions reported that PHE could be safely addressed laparoscopically compared with open PHE and laparoscopic techniques for other adrenal pathologies (OAP) [5, 8, 9, 10]. However, many have described longer operative times and increased blood loss even in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

In response to these concerns, we performed a retrospective review of our experience with LA for PHE and analyzed the results relative to those for LA used to treat OAP. This study aimed to establish whether LA for PHE has morbidity and mortality similar to those of LA for OAP.


The patients enrolled in this study were identified by their International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) code as having adrenal pathology addressed laparoscopically from July 1997 to December 2008. All information was collected retrospectively through a review of hospital and clinic charts. Demographic, procedural, and postoperative data were documented. Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure highter than 180 mmHg, and hypotension was identified as a systolic blood pressure lower than 80 mmHg. All operative data were collected from the anesthesia records.

All the patients underwent preoperative abdominal imaging. The diagnosis of PHE was confirmed with serum and urinary catecholamines or urinary vanillylmandelic acid. Preoperative blood pressure control was established with alpha-blockers. A beta-blocker was added if indicated for the treatment of tachycardia. When necessary, patients were admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) 1 day before surgery for invasive cardiac monitoring and optimization of intravascular volume status.

The technique for LA has been described previously [11]. In short, the patient is positioned in the lateral decubitus position. Laparoscopic access is established followed by the placement three or four trocars. For a left-sided PHE, the lateral attachments of the splenic flexure and sigmoid colon are taken down. In addressing a right PHE, a liver retractor is used to retract the right lobe of the liver to facilitate exposure of the lateral border of the vena cava and its junction with the adrenal vein. The adrenal vein then is identified and ligated. Additional small venous and arterial branches are divided if necessary. Finally, the mass is elevated from its adventitial attachments, amputated, and removed from the abdomen.

Data analysis was completed using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). For those variables that satisfied the normality and equal variance assumptions, Student’s t tests were performed. Nonparametric data were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney test. Binary variables were assessed with Fisher’s exact test. Additional analyses were performed to determine whether the results were affected by the adjustment for location of the tumor (left or right side). All patients who had tumors on both the left and the right sides were removed from this analysis. A series of analysis of variance (ANOVAs) and logistic regression techniques were used to complete this assessment. Statistical significance was defined as a p value less than 0.05. Permission from the Ohio State University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained before the study was initiated.


The data from 33 PHE cases were compared the data from 69 non-PHE cases (26 adenomas, 14 aldosteronomas, 5 cortisol-secreting tumors, 5 multinodular hyperplasias, and 19 other disorders). The demographic data for both groups are presented in Table 1. Notably, the patients in the non-PHE group were significantly older than the PHE patients. Conversely, the patients with PHE had a higher body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores.
Table 1

Patient and tumor characteristics of the pheochromocytoma (PHE) and non-PHE groups




p Value













Right side




Left side








BMI body mass index, ASA American Society of Anesthesiology

The operative data are shown in Table 2. Notably, the mean operative times, blood losses, and frequencies of blood pressure extremes did not differ between the PHE and non-PHE groups. There was, however, an increase in the number of PHE patients who received intraoperative hypertensive agents. There were five conversions, four of which involved patients with PHE (p = 0.03).
Table 2

Operative characteristics of the pheochromocytoma (PHE) and non-PHE groups




p Value

EBL (ml)




Operative time (min)




Conversion to open procedure




Patients with intraoperative hypertension




Total no. of hypertensive episodes




No. of times hypertensive agents were given




Patients with intraoperative hypotension




Total no. of hypotensive episodes




No. of times hypotensive agents were given




EBL estimated blood loss

The size of the tumor was not influenced by the underlying pathology (p = 0.6). Additionally, the size of the tumor had no influence on the rate of complications for either the PHE or the non-PHE group. Furthermore, the location of the tumor did not influence the estimated blood loss in either group. Tumor size had no impact the time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) or the length of the postoperative hospital stay.

The postoperative data for the PHE and non-PHE groups are shown in Table 3. It should be noted that the patients with PHE had a longer hospital course than those with OAP. However, the complication rates did not differ between the two groups. In the PHE group, one patient experienced pancreatitis and a ureteropelvic junction obstruction requiring readmission and ureteral stenting. The OAP group had two cases of nosocomial pneumonia successfully treated with antibiotics. Another patient experienced a pulmonary embolism on postoperative day 2 necessitating oral anticoagulation. An additional patient experienced severe hypokalemia, which responded to oral supplementation. Finally, there was a case of left radial nerve palsy that resolved without intervention. There was one death in the PHE group secondary to congestive heart failure from longstanding hypertension.
Table 3

Postoperative characteristics of the pheochromocytoma (PHE) and non-PHE groups




p Value

Tumor size (cm)




Total LOS (days)




Postoperative LOS (days)




Time in the ICU (days)




Time to oral intake (days)




30-Day readmission








LOS hospital length of stay, ICU intensive care unit


Laparoscopy is now considered the standard of care for benign tumors of the adrenal gland. Notwithstanding this fact, there has been debate over the suitability of this approach for PHE. Discussions have concentrated on the hemodynamic consequences of pneumoperitoneum and tumor manipulation with a minimally invasive approach [12, 13]. Additionally, some question LA for PHE because of the potential for malignancy and tumor spillage caused by excessive manipulation [14]. Based on these concerns, some investigators have described the laparoscopic approach to a PHE as an operation to be used with caution [15].

In an effort to define better the indications for laparoscopy used to treat PHE, different groups have compared their experience with this approach versus open surgery. Humphrey et al. [5] retrospectively reviewed a single institution’s experience with the selective use of laparoscopy for PHE. They noted no differences in intraoperative hemodynamic changes or postoperative complications. It should be noted that they used minimally invasive techniques for patients known to have smaller tumors and those without a history of extensive abdominal surgery. Similarly, Tiberio et al. [10] reported no differences in hemodynamic sequelae or morbidity in their prospective randomized comparison of LA with open adrenalectomy for PHE.

Other investigators have published their experience with LA versus OAP for PHE. Most reports indicate that the tumor size for a PHE is significantly larger than for a non-PHE [15, 16]. Interestingly, no consensus exists regarding the influence that this has on the operating time [15, 16, 17, 18]. The complexity of the dissection as it relates to the increased vascularity and vasoactive characteristics of PHE may contribute to this inconsistency.

Blood loss also is reported to be higher with PHE [16, 17]. Furthermore, there is variability in the reported morbidity for LA, with higher complication rates reported for PHE patients than for non-PHE patients [8, 19]. In summary, the minimally invasive approach is described as a more complicated and potentially dangerous operation for a PHE.

In the current series, 102 adrenal masses were addressed laparoscopically in 95 patients. The patients undergoing LA for OAP tended to be older than the patients with PHE. Despite this difference, the patients with PHE had a poorer functional status and a higher BMI. That is, the individuals undergoing a surgical resection of PHE had outcomes similar to those for non-PHE patients, although the PHE population had a higher risk for poor outcomes.

We noted no difference in the size of the mass between the patients with PHE and those with OAP. Additionally, no correlation was found between the location or size of the tumor and the blood loss. Furthermore, the size of the tumor did not have an effect on the complication rate. This suggests that the tumor can be safely addressed laparoscopically irrespective of its location or size. The principle risk for a minimally invasive approach to a PHE in this group of patients increased the need for conversion to an open operation (p = 0.03). This is significant because it supports the idea that a PHE can be treated with minimally invasive techniques without exposing the patient to an increased risk for negative outcomes.

Pheochromocytomas are hypervascular tumors that release vasoactive mediators when manipulated. These qualities add to the concerns for the safety of a minimally invasive approach to this disease. In this case series, there was no difference in the prevalence or incidence of blood pressure extremes between the two groups. Not surprisingly, the PHE group had a higher incidence of intraoperative treatment with antihypertensive agents. The number of patients treated for hypotension did not differ between the two groups. At no point did the blood pressure variation interrupt operative dissection or require conversion to an open procedure. Our data demonstrate that the risk of hemodynamic instability is minimal and, with proper monitoring, does not preclude a laparoscopic approach.

Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of their PHE had longer postoperative and overall hospital stays. Additionally, they were more likely to spend more time in the ICU postoperatively. These patients also were slower to resume oral intake. However, this did not translate into a higher complication rate for the PHE group. Notwithstanding the increased time for convalescence, the operative outcomes were similar. A PHE can be approached laparoscopically without increasing the patient’s exposure to morbidity and mortality.


The analysis of our experience with 105 consecutive LAs demonstrates similar outcomes for PHE and OAP patients. Careful hemodynamic monitoring and meticulous dissection results in similar morbidities. The current series demonstrated an increased risk of conversion to open surgery with PHE. We suggest that the laparoscopic approach should be considered the gold standard approach for the surgical management of patients with PHE.



Peter Nau received a Covidien Training Grant for 2008–2009. Jeffrey W. Hazey received a Stryker Research grant and a Boston Scientific Training grant, and is on the Clinical Advisory Board for Covidien and Ethicon. W. Scott Melvin is on the Advisory Board for Endogastric Solutions, Surgiquest, and Stryker. He also received training grants from Covidien and Stryker. Christopher Ellison, Vimal Narula, Peter Muscarella, and Sebastian Demyttenaere have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Semm K (1983) Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 15:59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith CD, Weber CJ, Amerson JR (1999) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: new gold standard. World J Surg 23:389–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gagner M, Breton G, Pharand D, Pomp A (1996) Is laparoscopic adrenalectomy indicated for pheochromocytomas? Surgery 120:1076–1079 (discussion 1079–1080)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kercher KW, Novitsky YW, Park A, Matthews BD, Litwin DE, Heniford BT (2005) Laparoscopic curative resection of pheochromocytomas. Ann Surg 241:919–926 (discussion 926–928)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey R, Gray D, Pautler S, Davies W (2008) Laparoscopic compared with open adrenalectomy for resection of pheochromocytoma: a review of 47 cases. Can J Surg 51:276–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan JE, Meneghetti AT, Meloche RM, Panton ON (2006) Prospective comparison of early and late experience with laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Am J Surg 191:682–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheah WK, Clark OH, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Duh QY (2002) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma. World J Surg 26:1048–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim AW, Quiros RM, Maxhimer JB, El-Ganzouri AR, Prinz RA (2004) Outcome of laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytomas vs aldosteronomas. Arch Surg 139:526–529 (discussion 529–531)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chin EH, Baril DT, Weber KJ, Divino CM (2008) Laparoscopic cortical-sparing adrenalectomy for bilateral pheochromocytoma. Surg Endosc 22:2075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tiberio GA, Baiochi GL, Arru L, Agabiti Rosei C, De Ponti S, Matheis A, Rizoni D, Giulini SM (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic versus open adrenalectomy for sporadic pheochromocytoma. Surg Endosc 22:1435–1439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zacharias M, Haese A, Jurczok A, Stolzenburg JU, Fornara P (2006) Transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: outline of the preoperative management, surgical approach, and outcome. Eur Urol 49:448–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandez-Cruz L, Saenz A, Taura P, Sabaer L, Astudillo E, Fontanais J (1998) Helium and carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum in patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy. World J Surg 22:1250–1255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flavio Rocha M, Faramarzi-Roques R, Tauzin-Fin P, Vallee V, Leitao de Vasconcelos PR, Ballanger P (2004) Laparoscopic surgery for pheochromocytoma. Eur Urol 45:226–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li ML, Fitzgerald PA, Price DC, Norton JA (2001) Iatrogenic pheochromocytomatosis: a previously unreported result of laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Surgery 130:1072–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomson BN, Moulton CA, Davies M, Banting SW (2004) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for phaeochromocytoma: with caution. ANZ J Surg 74:429–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toniato A, Boschin I, Bernante P, Opocher G, Guolo AM, Pelizzo MR, Mantero F (2007) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma: is it really more difficult? Surg Endosc 21:1323–1326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalady MF, McKinlay R, Olson JA, Pinheiro J, Lagoo S, Park A, Eubanks WS (2004) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma: a comparison to aldosteronoma and incidentaloma. Surg Endosc 18:621–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tatsugami K, Eto M, Hamaguci M, Yokomizo A, Harano M, Naito S (2009) What affects the results of a laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma? Evaluation with respect to intraoperative blood pressure and state of tumor. J Endourol 23:101–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gotoh M, Ono Y, Hattori R, Kinukawa T, Onshima S (2002) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma: morbidity compared with adrenalectomy for tumors of other pathology. J Endourol 16:245–249 (discussion 249–250)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Nau
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sebastian Demyttenaere
    • 1
  • Peter Muscarella
    • 2
  • Vimal Narula
    • 1
  • Jeffrey W. Hazey
    • 1
  • E. Christopher Ellison
    • 3
  • W. Scott Melvin
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Minimally Invasive SurgeryOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Division of General SurgeryOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryOhio State University School of Medicine and Public HealthColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations