Article

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery radical nephrectomy.

Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Journal of endourology / Endourological Society (Impact Factor: 1.75). 02/2011; 25(2):159-65. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0673
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The indications, instrumentation, surgical technique, and complications of laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN) are being described in detail in an attempt to familiarize urologists with this novel laparoscopic technique. Our initial experience of 30 consecutive cases of LESS-RN is reported. The results indicate that, in experienced hands, LESS-RN is feasible and safe, with results comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Nevertheless, larger series of patients are needed to prove if the increased technical difficulty of LESS-RN justifies its use in routine urologic practice.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
93 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The conventional laparoscopic surgery is now paving way to the new technologies including robotic and laparoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). We present our updated experience on LESS radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data from patients undergoing LESS-RN in our two institutions were reviewed along with various clinical and pathological parameters. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2011, 42 LESS-RN were performed (right = 22, left = 20) with mean (range) age and BMI of 63.7 (33-86) years and 25.1 (18-38.6) kg/m(2), respectively. In addition to the instruments in the single port, one extra 3-mm needlescopic instrument was required in 19 patients (right = 17, left = 2). In three patients, two additional 5-mm trocars and instruments were required. None required open conversion. The recorded adverse events include one bowel injury (intraoperative closure without the need for stoma), one postoperative bleeding requiring blood transfusion, one prolonged ileus, and one deep venous thrombosis. The resected specimens revealed pT1a (n = 3), pT1b (n = 33), pT2a (n = 4), and pT3b (n = 2) tumors. The finding of pT3b was incidental rather than planned procedure. None of the patients had positive margins. CONCLUSION: LESS-RN has proven to be feasible and safe. Beyond cosmesis, further advantages of this approach need to be addressed by randomized trials.
    World Journal of Urology 09/2011; · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) are the next steps in the evolution of laparoscopic surgery, promising reduced morbidity and improved cosmetic result. The inconsistent terminology initially used led to confusion. Understanding the technical evolution, the current status and a unified and simplified terminology are key issues for further acceptance of both approaches. OBJECTIVE: To present LESS and NOTES in its historical context and to clarify the associated terminology. METHOD: Extensive literature search took place using the PubMed. Several hundred publications in general surgery and urology regarding LESS are present including the expert opinion of members the European Society of Uro-technology (ESUT). RESULTS: The increasing interest on NOTES and LESS is reflected by a raising number of publications during the last 4 years. The initial confusion with the terminology of single-incision surgery represented a significant issue for further evolution of the technique. Thus, consortiums of experts searched a universally acceptable name for single-incision surgery. They determined that 'laparoendoscopic single-site surgery' (LESS) was both scientifically accurate and colloquially appropriate, the term being also ratified by the NOTES working group (Endourological Society) and the ESUT. For additional use of instruments, the terms hybrid NOTES and hybrid LESS should be used. Any single use of miniaturized instruments for laparoscopy should be called mini-laparoscopy. DISCUSSION: The evolution of LESS and most likely NOTES to a new standard of minimally invasive surgery could represent an evolutionary step even greater than the one performed by the establishment of laparoscopy over open surgery.
    World Journal of Urology 07/2012; · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has emerged in the recent years as an alternative approach to conventional laparoscopic surgery which is accompanied by additional advantages over laparoscopy. In this work we attempt to review the current literature and to investigate the possible combination of LESS to other currently available approaches such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), needlescopic and robotic laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Extensive literature search on the topics of LESS, hybrid and pure NOTES, Needlescopic-assisted LESS and "Robot-assisted LESS" took place. Additionally, the accumulated experience from 118 LESSs performed in our departments is presented in an attempt to provide evidence regarding the mix of technique in LESS in urology. RESULTS: The challenging nature of LESS limits the broader application and acceptance. Expanding experience in single-site surgery has currently provided tools such as transvaginal access, needlescopic instruments and robot assistance that can aid LESS and enhance its efficiency without compromising any of its advantages. A mix of these techniques with LESS could ease the stiff learning curve of the second and benefit not only its performance but also the adaptation of LESS as a standard practice. CONCLUSION: Pure LESS although feasible, remains a technical challenge for the surgeon, preventing the widespread application of the technique. The goal of urologists on LESS surgery should not be the purity of LESS approach, but the superiority against already established techniques. A mix of techniques could be a key for the documentation of the advantages of LESS over conventional laparoscopy.
    World Journal of Urology 10/2011; · 2.89 Impact Factor