Pituitary Surgery Outcome in Patients 75 Years and Older

Abstract

Background

As the population ages, the number of elderly patients with an indication for pituitary surgery is rising. Information on the outcome of patients aged over 75 is limited. This study reports a large series assessing the feasibility of surgical resection in this specific age range, focusing on surgical complications and postoperative results.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients with pituitary adenomas and Rathke’s cleft cysts was conducted. All patients were aged 75 years or over and treated by a single expert neurosurgical team. A control population included 2379 younger adult patients operated by the same surgeons during the same period.

Results

Between 2008 and 2022, 155 patients underwent surgery. Indication was based on vision impairment in most patients (79%). Median follow-up was 13 months (range: 3–96). The first surgery was performed with an endoscopic transsellar approach, an extended endonasal transtuberculum approach and a microscopic transcranial approach in 96%, 3%, and 1% of patients, respectively. Single surgery was sufficient to obtain volume control in 97% of patients. From Kaplan-Meier estimates, 2-year and 5-year disease control with a single surgery were 97.3% and 86.2%, respectively. Resection higher than 80% was achieved in 77% of patients. No vision worsening occurred. In acromegaly and Cushing’s disease, endocrine remission was obtained in 90% of non-invasive adenomas. Surgical complications were noted in 5% of patients, with 30-day mortality, hematoma, cerebrospinal fluid leak, meningitis, and epistaxis occurring in 0.6%, 0.6%, 1.9%, 0.6%, and 1.3% respectively. New endocrine anterior deficits occurred in only 5%, while no persistent diabetes insipidus was noted. Compared with younger patients, the complication rate was not statistically different.

Conclusions

Surgery beyond the age of 75, mainly relying on an endoscopic endonasal transsellar approach, is effective and safe, provided that patients are managed in tertiary centers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

CSF:
Cerebrospinal fluid
ASA:
American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System

References

  1. Albano L, Losa M, Barzaghi LR, Niranjan A, Siddiqui Z, Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD, Mortini P (2021) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for pituitary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 13(19):4998

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander TD, Chitguppi C, Collopy S et al (2022) Surgical outcomes of endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection in elderly versus younger patients. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 83(4):405–410

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  3. Baussart B, Declerck A, Gaillard S (2021) Mononostril endoscopic endonasal approach for pituitary surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 163(3):655–659

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Baussart B, Racy E, Gaillard S (2022) Double pedicled nasoseptal flap for skull base repair after endoscopic expanded endonasal approach. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 164(4):1111–1114

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Baussart B, Venier A, Jouinot A, Reuter G, Gaillard S (2022) Closure strategy for endoscopic pituitary surgery: experience from 3015 patients. Front Oncol 12:1067312

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Biamonte E, Betella N, Milani D, Lasio GB, Ariano S, Radice S, Lavezzi E, Mazziotti G, Lania A (2021) Impact of age on postsurgical outcomes of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Endocrine 72(3):915–922

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Castinetti F, Nagai M, Dufour H, Kuhn J-M, Morange I, Jaquet P, Conte-Devolx B, Regis J, Brue T (2007) Gamma Knife radiosurgery is a successful adjunctive treatment in Cushing’s disease. Eur J Endocrinol 156(1):91–98

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chalif EJ, Couldwell WT, Aghi MK (2022) Effect of facility volume on giant pituitary adenoma neurosurgical outcomes. J Neurosurg 14:1–10

    Google Scholar

  9. Chen SH, Sprau A, Chieng L, Buttrick S, Alam ES, Ali SC, Madhavan K, Sargi ZB, Komotar R (2019) Transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas in elderly patients. World Neurosurg 121:e670–e674

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ciric I, Ragin A, Baumgartner C, Pierce D (1997) Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience. Neurosurgery 40(2):225–236 (discussion 236-237)

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Cossu G, Jouanneau E, Cavallo LM et al (2022) Surgical management of giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: meta-analysis and consensus statement on behalf of the EANS skull base section. Brain Spine 2:100878

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  12. Ding D, Mehta GU, Patibandla MR et al (2019) Stereotactic radiosurgery for acromegaly: an international multicenter retrospective cohort study. Neurosurg 84(3):717–725

    Article Google Scholar

  13. Eichberg DG, Di L, Shah AH, Luther E, Richardson AM, Sarkiss CA, Ivan ME, Komotar RJ (2019) Brain tumor surgery is safe in octogenarians and nonagenarians: a single-surgeon 741 patient series. World Neurosurg 132:e185–e192

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Engel JS, Tran J, Khalil N, Hladkowicz E, Lalu MM, Huang A, Wong CL, Hutton B, Dhesi JK, McIsaac DI (2023) A systematic review of perioperative clinical practice guidelines for care of older adults living with frailty. Br J Anaesth 130(3):262–271

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ezzat S, Asa SL, Couldwell WT, Barr CE, Dodge WE, Vance ML, McCutcheon IE (2004) The prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a systematic review. Cancer 101(3):613–619

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Falk Erhag H, Guðnadóttir G, Alfredsson J, Cederholm T, Ekerstad N, Religa D, Nellgård B, Wilhelmson K (2023) The association between the clinical frailty scale and adverse health outcomes in older adults in acute clinical settings – a systematic review of the literature. Clin Interv Aging 18:249–261

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  17. Fleseriu M, Auchus R, Bancos I et al (2021) Consensus on diagnosis and management of Cushing’s disease: a guideline update. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9(12):847–875

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  18. Frara S, Rodriguez-Carnero G, Formenti AM, Martinez-Olmos MA, Giustina A, Casanueva FF (2020) Pituitary tumors centers of excellence. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 49(3):553–564

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Gaillard S (2014) The transition from microscopic to endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery in high-caseload neurosurgical centers: the experience of Foch Hospital. World Neurosurg 82(6 Suppl):S116-120

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Giustina A, Chanson P, Bronstein MD et al (2010) A consensus on criteria for cure of acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95(7):3141–3148

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Gondim JA, Almeida JP, de Albuquerque LAF, Gomes E, Schops M, Mota JI (2015) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery in elderly patients with pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 123(1):31–38

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Horvath B, Kloesel B, Todd MM, Cole DJ, Prielipp RC (2021) The evolution, current value, and future of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System. Anesthesiology 135(5):904–919

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Kinoshita Y, Taguchi A, Tominaga A, Arita K, Yamasaki F (2021) Pseudocapsular resection in elderly patients with non-functioning pituitary adenoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 210:106997

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C (1993) Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: a magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery 33(4):610–617 (discussion 617-618)

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Lee C-C, Sheehan JP (2016) Advances in Gamma Knife radiosurgery for pituitary tumors. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 23(4):331–338

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Leiner T, Nemeth D, Hegyi P, Ocskay K, Virag M, Kiss S, Rottler M, Vajda M, Varadi A, Molnar Z (2022) Frailty and emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 9:811524

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Lin H-S, Watts JN, Peel NM, Hubbard RE (2016) Frailty and post-operative outcomes in older surgical patients: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 16(1):157

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  28. Lu VM, Ravindran K, Perry A, Graffeo CS, Dawood HY, Van Gompel JJ, Mekary RA, Smith TR (2020) Recurrence of Rathke’s cleft cysts based on gross total resection of cyst wall: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 43(3):957–966

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Maiuri F, Corvino S, Lorenzetti M, Franca RA, Esposito F, Caro Del Basso De M (2023) Intracranial meningiomas in patients aged ≥80 years: pathological features and surgical problems. World Neurosurg 173:e498–e508

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Marcus HJ, Khan DZ, Borg A et al (2021) Pituitary society expert Delphi consensus: operative workflow in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection. Pituitary 24(6):839–853

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  31. Melmed S (ed) (2017) The pituitary, 4th edn. Elsevier/Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, San Diego

    Google Scholar

  32. Melmed S, Kaiser UB, Lopes MB et al (2022) Clinical biology of the pituitary adenoma. Endocr Rev 43(6):1003–1037

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  33. Memel Z, Chesney K, Pangal DJ, Bonney PA, Carmichael JD, Zada G (2019) Outcomes following transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in the elderly: a retrospective single-center review. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 16(3):302–309

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Messerer M, De Battista JC, Raverot G, Kassis S, Dubourg J, Lapras V, Trouillas J, Perrin G, Jouanneau E (2011) Evidence of improved surgical outcome following endoscopy for nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma removal. Neurosurg Focus 30(4):E11

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Micko A, Oberndorfer J, Weninger WJ, Vila G, Höftberger R, Wolfsberger S, Knosp E (2019) Challenging Knosp high-grade pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 132(6):1739–1746

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Minniti G, Esposito V, Piccirilli M, Fratticci A, Santoro A, Jaffrain-Rea M-L (2005) Diagnosis and management of pituitary tumours in the elderly: a review based on personal experience and evidence of literature. Eur J Endocrinol 153(6):723–735

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Minniti G, Filippi AR, Osti MF, Ricardi U (2017) Radiation therapy for older patients with brain tumors. Radiat Oncol 12(1):101

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  38. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Poggi M, Jaffrain Rea ML, Trillò G, Esposito V, Bozzao A, Enrici MM, Toscano V, Enrici RM (2015) Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large and invasive non-functioning pituitary adenomas: long-term clinical outcomes and volumetric MRI assessment of tumor response. Eur J Endocrinol 172(4):433–441

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Mortini P, Nocera G, Roncelli F, Losa M, Formenti AM, Giustina A (2020) The optimal numerosity of the referral population of pituitary tumors centers of excellence (PTCOE): a surgical perspective. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 21(4):527–536

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Nidadavolu LS, Ehrlich AL, Sieber FE, Oh ES (2020) Preoperative evaluation of the frail patient. Anesth Analg 130(6):1493–1503

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  41. Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, Patil N, Waite K, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS (2019) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2012–2016. Neuro Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v1–v100

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  42. Pereira MP, Oh T, Joshi RS et al (2020) Clinical characteristics and outcomes in elderly patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery for nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma. Neurosurg Focus 49(4):E19

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Quah BL, Edwards-Bailey A, Gnanalingham K, Pathmanaban O, Vasilopoulos H, Roncaroli F, Kearney T, Balogun J, Karabatsou K (2022) Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for biochemically and clinically non-functioning adenohypophyseal tumours in the elderly: experience from a single UK centre. Endocrine 75(3):872–882

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Robenshtok E, Benbassat CA, Hirsch D, Tzvetov G, Cohen ZR, Iraqi HM, Gorshtein A, Toledano Y, Shimon I (2014) Clinical course and outcome of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in the elderly compared with younger age groups. Endocr Pract 20(2):159–164

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Saleh A, Thirukumaran C, Mesfin A, Molinari RW (2017) Complications and readmission after lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients: an analysis of 2,320 patients. Spine J 17(8):1106–1112

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Sheehan JM, Douds GL, Hill K, Farace E (2008) Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma in elderly patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150(6):571–574 (discussion 574)

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Sheehan JP, Starke RM, Mathieu D et al (2013) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for the management of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: a multicenter study: clinical article. JNS 119(2):446–456

    Article Google Scholar

  48. Sherlock M, Ayuk J, Tomlinson JW, Toogood AA, Aragon-Alonso A, Sheppard MC, Bates AS, Stewart PM (2010) Mortality in patients with pituitary disease. Endocr Rev 31(3):301–342

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Spina A, Losa M, Mortini P (2019) Pituitary adenomas in elderly patients: clinical and surgical outcome analysis in a large series. Endocrine 65(3):637–645

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Tardivo V, Penner F, Garbossa D, Di Perna G, Pacca P, Salvati L, Altieri R, Grottoli S, Zenga F (2020) Surgical management of pituitary adenomas: does age matter? Pituitary 23(2):92–102

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Thakur JD, Corlin A, Mallari RJ et al (2021) Pituitary adenomas in older adults (≥ 65 years): 90-day outcomes and readmissions: a 10-year endoscopic endonasal surgical experience. Pituitary 24(1):14–26

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  52. Trouillas J, Jaffrain-Rea M-L, Vasiljevic A, Raverot G, Roncaroli F, Villa C (2020) How to classify the pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET)s in 2020. Cancers (Basel) 12(2):E514

    Article Google Scholar

  53. Tuleasca C, Ducos Y, Leroy H-A, Chanson P, Knafo S, Levivier M, Aghakhani N, Parker F (2020) Transsphenoidal resection for pituitary adenoma in elderly versus younger patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 162(6):1297–1308

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Villa C, Vasiljevic A, Jaffrain-Rea ML et al (2019) A standardised diagnostic approach to pituitary neuroendocrine tumours (PitNETs): a European Pituitary Pathology Group (EPPG) proposal. Virchows Arch 475(6):687–692

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Wilson PJ, Omay SB, Kacker A, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2018) Endonasal endoscopic pituitary surgery in the elderly. J Neurosurg 128(2):429–436

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  56. Yunoue S, Tokimura H, Tominaga A et al (2014) Transsphenoidal surgical treatment of pituitary adenomas in patients aged 80 years or older. Neurosurg Rev 37(2):269–276 (discussion 276-277)

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  57. Zhan R, Ma Z, Wang D, Li X (2015) Pure endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in the elderly: surgical outcomes and complications in 158 patients. World Neurosurg 84(6):1572–1578

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  58. Zietlow KE, Wong S, Heflin MT, McDonald SR, Sickeler R, Devinney M, Blitz J, Lagoo-Deenadayalan S, Berger M (2022) Geriatric preoperative optimization: a review. Am J Med 135(1):39–48

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 47-83 Boulevard de L’Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Marta Garvayo, Vincent Reina, Stephan Gaillard & Bertrand Baussart

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Marta Garvayo & Mahmoud Messerer

  3. Université Paris Cité, CNRS, INSERM, Institut Cochin, 75014, Paris, France

    Chiara Villa, Anne Jouinot, Jérôme Bertherat, Guillaume Assié & Bertrand Baussart

  4. Department of Neuropathology, La Pitié-Salpêtière University Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Chiara Villa

  5. Department of Endocrinology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne Billancourt, France

    Mirella Hage & Marie-Laure Raffin-Sanson

  6. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines UFR Des Sciences de La Santé Simone Veil, Montigny-Le-Bretonneux, France

    Mirella Hage & Marie-Laure Raffin-Sanson

  7. Department of Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Centre de Référence Des Maladies Endocriniennes Rares de La Croissance Et du Développement, CRMERC, Endo-ERN, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Carine Courtillot & Anne Bachelot

  8. Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, Physiologie Et Physiopathologie Endocriniennes, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bicêtre, Service d’Endocrinologie Et Des Maladies de La Reproduction, Centre de Référence des Maladies Rares de L’Hypophyse, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Peter Kamenicky & Philippe Chanson

  9. Sorbonne University, Endocrine Unit, Reproductive Medicine, Centre de Référence Des Maladies Endocriniennes Rares de La Croissance Et du Développement (CRMERC), Endo-ERN (Id 739527), Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Camille Vatier & Sophie Christin-Maitre

  10. Inserm UMRS938, Saint-Antoine Research Center, Sorbonne University, 75012, Paris, France

    Camille Vatier

  11. INSERM UMR-833, Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France

    Sophie Christin-Maitre

  12. Department of Endocrinology, Center of Rare Adrenal Diseases, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

    Jérôme Bertherat & Guillaume Assié

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand Baussart.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00701-023-05809-x

Cushing’s Syndrome in Pregnancy in Which Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy was Safely Performed by a Retroperitoneal Approach

Abstract

Introduction

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is the standard treatment for adrenal tumors caused by Cushing’s syndrome. However, few pregnant women have undergone adrenalectomy because of the risk of general anesthesia and surgery.

Case presentation

A 28-year-old woman presented with gradually worsening Cushing’s signs at around 12 weeks of pregnancy. Magnetic resonance imaging displayed a 38-mm left adrenal tumor, which was the cause of the adrenal Cushing’s syndrome. Metyrapone was started, which increased androgen levels. Since the management of Cushing’s syndrome by medication alone is challenging, unilateral laparoscopic adrenalectomy by a retroperitoneal approach was performed at 23 weeks of the pregnancy. No perioperative complications were noted.

Conclusion

Adrenalectomy is considered safe in pregnant women with Cushing’s syndrome. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy by retroperitoneal approach should be chosen and performed between 14 and 30 weeks of pregnancy to prevent mother and fetal complications.

Abbreviations & Acronyms

  • CS
  • Cushing’s syndrome
  • MRI
  • magnetic resonance imaging

Keynote message

We report a rare case of adrenalectomy performed via a retroperitoneal approach for Cushing’s syndrome in a pregnant woman. Cushing’s syndrome may affect the fetus, and surgery can be considered in addition to medical management. Adrenalectomy should be performed in the second trimester of pregnancy. Pneumoperitoneal pressure, position, and surgical approaches must receive careful attention.

Introduction

CS is characterized by excessive cortisol secretion and characteristic symptoms such as full moon-like facial features and central obesity. Premenopausal women with CS rarely become pregnant because excessive glucocorticoid secretion inhibits the synthesis of gonadotropins, leading to impaired ovarian and endometrial function, and causing amenorrhea or oligomenorrhea.1 Furthermore, even when women with CS become pregnant, the incidence of severe complications is high. CS can cause maternal hypertension, diabetes/glucose intolerance, osteopenia/osteoporosis, preeclampsia, pulmonary edema, heart failure, opportunistic infections, and even death. Additionally, CS can potentially cause stillbirth, prematurity, and intrauterine fetal growth restriction.16 Therefore, CS must be detected at an early stage in pregnancy; however, CS may go undetected because of the overlapping signs of preeclampsia and/or gestational diabetes.

A cortisol-secreting adrenal tumor is the underlying cause of CS, and laparoscopic adrenalectomy is the standard treatment to it. Medical treatment of CS can include medications that inhibit 11β-hydroxylase, such as metyrapone and osilodrostat, but surgical treatment is considered if the disease is difficult to control with medical treatment. Nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy is performed in 1%–2% of pregnant women.7 Although general anesthesia is relatively safe during pregnancy, the indication for the surgery must be carefully considered because of potential risks such as neurodevelopmental delay, sudden death, etc.

Herein, we present a case of a pregnant woman diagnosed with CS who underwent unilateral laparoscopic adrenalectomy by a retroperitoneal approach without any problems.

Case presentation

The patient was a 28-year-old primiparous woman. Since around 12 weeks of pregnancy, she has experienced facial and lower limb edema; gained 6-kg weight in 1 month; increased facial acne; and experienced subcutaneous bleeding on the forearms, red abdominal dermatitis, proximal muscle weakness, palpitations, insomnia, and decreased vision in eyes. Her symptoms gradually worsened from 14 weeks, and she was referred to our hospital to clarify the cause at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Adrenal CS was suspected on the basis of her Cushing’s signs, cortisol 25 μg/dL, and adrenocorticotropic hormone <1.5 pg/mL. She had hypokalemia, hypogammaglobulinemia, and liver dysfunction, and her condition was rapidly worsening. Given her pregnant state, she was admitted for intensive testing for the case of CS from 19 weeks of pregnancy. MRI revealed a well-defined 38-mm left adrenal tumor, which was the cause of the adrenal CS (Fig. 1). She was started on metyrapone with 250 mg per day, which increased androgens (0.53–0.69 ng/mL in 1 week). We considered that the management of CS by medication alone would be challenging and performed adrenalectomy during her pregnancy. The dose of metyrapone was increased to 1000 mg per day eventually.

Details are in the caption following the image

Magnetic resonance imaging on admission shows a left adrenal tumor with a long axis of 38 mm (arrowhead). Signal reduction was partially observed on opposed-phase images, leading to diagnosis of cortical adenoma.

She was admitted to the hospital at 23 weeks and 2 days of gestation, and laparoscopic left adrenalectomy was performed via a retroperitoneal approach in the right lateral and jackknife position on the following day (Fig. S1). During the surgery, blood pressure was carefully controlled by an anesthesiologist and the patient’s position and fetal heart rate were monitored by an obstetrician. The operation time, insufflation time, and general anesthesia time were 68, 59, and 123 min, respectively, and the blood loss volume was 75 mL, without any complications. Pathological findings revealed an adrenocortical adenoma. The specimen was positive for one of the nine Weiss criteria (Fig. 2).

Details are in the caption following the image

(a) Intraoperative findings of the retroperitoneal approach. Arrowheads indicate the tumor. (b) Gross appearance of the resected adrenal tumor; a brownish-toned, substantial mass, 60 × 34 × 15 mm in size. (c, d) Hematoxylin–eosin staining showed that nodular lesion with a fibrous capsule, with foci of homogeneous cells with eosinophilic or pale, foamy sporangia and small round nuclei.

Postoperatively, metyrapone was discontinued and both lower leg edema, facial acne, fatigue, and muscle weakness improved. Metyrapone was discontinued after surgery. Hydrocortisone, which had been administered at 150 mg/day during the perioperative period, was reduced every few weeks and was taken at 30 mg/day at delivery. She delivered by cesarean section at 38 weeks and 2 days of gestation, with good outcomes for the mother and her infant. Hydrocortisone was discontinued 15 weeks after delivery.

We showed the changes in cortisol and ACTH from the first visit to postpartum (Fig. 3).

Details are in the caption following the image

The transition of Cortisol and ACTH. Cortisol decreases rapidly after surgery and rises again before delivery. As cortisol improved, ACTH also increased.

Discussion

CS seldom occurs during pregnancy. Symptoms such as weight gain, skin striae, fatigue, and a round face can also occur in normal pregnancies. The dexamethasone suppression test can result in false positives because of ACTH produced by placenta in normal pregnancy. During pregnancy, there is a physiological state of high cortisol levels. The disappearance of diurnal rhythm is a useful indicator for diagnosis of CS in pregnancy because circadian rhythm is maintained in normal pregnancy. Useful diagnostic criteria include urine cortisol levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal, loss of diurnal cortisol rhythm, and presence of adrenal tumors on MRI.

The pharmacologic treatment of endogenous cortisol is complex, and hormonal management is challenging. While the management of the cortisol levels is important, metyrapone is a risk factor for gestational hypertension and may inhibit fetal cortisol production by crossing the placenta.16812

In this case, because androgens were also elevated and drug management was expected to be challenging, the surgery was aggressively considered. Despite the reports of successful adrenalectomy is after 28 weeks of gestation,61314 The surgery should be performed by an experienced team between 14 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, that is, after organogenesis phase and before the fetus grows too large.11315

A few pregnant women with adrenal CS undergo adrenalectomy. However, the laparoscopic approach is safe, and maternal and fetal complications were higher in women who did not undergo surgery.16 Less postoperative pain, faster wound healing, and faster postoperative recovery are the main advantages of laparoscopic surgery.17

In pregnant women, pneumoperitoneal pressure should be kept <12 mmHg because increased intraabdominal pressure decreases placental blood flow and can cause fetal acidosis due to the absorption of carbon dioxide used for insufflation.

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy can be safely performed through both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches.18 However, in pregnant women, performing the surgery by the retroperitoneal approach in the lateral position is preferable to prevent putting pressure on the fetus during the surgery. The retroperitoneal approach is advantageous, as less pressure is placed on the uterus and adhesions are prevented. After taking the lateral position, the obstetrician is advised to check the position and confirm that the abdomen is not compressed and that the fetal heart rate is normal.

Conclusions

We present a case of a pregnant woman diagnosed with adrenal CS who underwent a unilateral laparoscopic adrenalectomy by a retroperitoneal approach without any problems. Adrenalectomy is a useful treatment when CS is difficult to control despite metyrapone and other medical support.

Author contributions

Nobuyoshi Takeuchi: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; writing – original draft. Yusuke Imamura: Conceptualization; methodology; supervision; writing – review and editing. Kazuki Ishiwata: Data curation; supervision. Manato Kanesaka: Data curation; supervision. Yusuke Goto: Data curation; supervision. Tomokazu Sazuka: Data curation; supervision. Sawako Suzuki: Data curation; supervision. Hisashi Koide: Data curation; supervision. Shinichi Sakamoto: Data curation; supervision. Tomohiko Ichikawa: Data curation; supervision.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Approval of the research protocol by an Institutional Reviewer Board

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Informed consent for the release of the case report and accompanying images has been obtained from the patient.

Registry and the Registration No. of the study/trial

Not applicable.

From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iju5.12637