Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single‐site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery

Objective of this study is to provide an evidence‐based analysis of the current status and future perspectives of scarless urological surgery. A PubMed search has been performed for all relevant urological literature regarding natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery (LESS). In addition, experience with LESS and NOTES at our own institution has been considered. All clinical and investigative reports for LESS and NOTES procedures in the urological literature have been considered. A wide variety of clinical procedures in urology have been succesfully completed by using LESS techniques. Thus far, experience with NOTES has largely been investigational, although early clinical reports are emerging. Further development of instrumentation and platforms is necessary for both techniques to become more widely adopted throughout the urological community.     

单孔腔镜技术发展带给我们的思考

经自然孔道内镜外科（natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, NOTES）经过近10年的研究,已经由一个理想中的概念走向初步的临床应用。由于其尚存在诸多较难克服的技术瓶颈,现阶段仍无法广泛开展。经脐单孔腔镜手术是目前最现实可行的“无瘢痕”技术。该技术近年来在国内外进展迅速,但是仍然存在许多亟待改进的方面,包括操作技巧的进步、器械设备的研发和手术观念的提高。该技术的临床应用和适应证的拓展将为NOTES手术提供有益的技术准备,若与内镜相结合,则可发挥各自的优势,使病人得到更为安全、有效、微创的治疗。由此可见,腔镜医生的培养需要辅以内镜技术的培训,这样才能造就技术全面的微创外科医生。     

Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Urology: A Critical Analysis of the Literature

Context

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) have been developed to benefit patients by enabling surgeons to perform scarless surgery.

Objective

To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future perspectives of LESS and NOTES in urology.

Evidence acquisition

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in June 2010 using the Medline database to identify all publications relating to NOTES and LESS in urology.

Evidence synthesis

In urology, NOTES has been completed experimentally via transgastric, transvaginal, transcolonic, and transvesical routes. Initial clinical experience has shown that NOTES urologic surgery using currently available instruments is indeed possible. Nevertheless, because of the immaturity of the instrumentation, early cases have demanded high technical virtuosity. LESS can safely and effectively be performed in a variety of urologic settings. As clinical experience increases, expanding indications are expected to be documented and the efficacy of the procedure to improve. So far, the quality of evidence of all available studies remains low, mostly being small case series or case-control studies from selected centers. Thus, the only objective benefit of LESS remains the improved cosmetic outcome. Prospective, randomized studies are largely awaited to determine which LESS procedures will be established and which are unlikely to stand the test of time. Technology advances hold promise to minimize the challenging technical nature of scarless surgery. In this respect, robotics is likely to drive a major paradigm shift in the development of LESS and NOTES.

Conclusions

NOTES is still an investigational approach in urology. LESS has proven to be immediately applicable in the clinical field, being safe and feasible in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.     

Laparo‐endoscopic single‐site surgery: preliminary advances in renal surgery

We reviewed the preliminary advances in laparo‐endoscopic single‐site surgery (LESS) as applied to renal surgery, and analyzed current publications based on animal models and human patients. We searched published reports in major urological meeting abstracts, Embase and Medline (1966 to 25 August 2008), with no language restrictions. Keyword searches included: ‘scarless’, ‘scar free’, ‘single port/trocar/incision’, ‘intraumbilical’, and ‘transumbilical’, ‘natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery’ (NOTES), ‘SILS’, ‘OPUS’ and ‘LESS’. The lessons learnt from the studies using the porcine model are that further advances in instrumentation are essential to achieve optimum results, and that testing survival in animals is also necessary to further expand the NOTES and LESS techniques. Further advances in instrument technology together with increasing experience in NOTES and LESS approaches have driven the transition from porcine models to human patients. In the latter, studies show that the techniques are feasible provided that both optimal surgical technical expertise with advanced skills, and optimal instrumentation, are available. The next step towards minimal access/minimally invasive urological surgery is NOTES and LESS. It is inevitable that LESS will be extended to involve more complex and technically demanding procedures such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy.     

Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: a comparison with the standard laparoscopic technique

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) is a novel technique for performing a variety of procedures including Urological upper tract reconstructive surgery. As of now few studies have compared perioperative factors and outcomes between LESS and standard laparoscopic or robotic approaches. In this comparison between LESS and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty we identified no significant differences in terms of narcotic requirements, quality of life indicators, and outcomes although prospective evaluation is needed.

OBJECTIVE

? To compare laparoendoscopic single‐site (LESS) and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty procedures with the aim of defining whether perioperative, recovery or health‐related quality of life (HRQL) benefits exist for the LESS procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? From November 2007 to August 2008, sixteen patients underwent LESS pyeloplasty at a tertiary care referral centre. These patients were compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty. ? Matching criteria included gender and age (within 10 years), as well as preoperative degree of obstruction (T_½ within 15 min) and differential renal function (within 10% ipsilaterally) based on diuretic radionuclide scanning. Mean follow‐up was 13 ± 4 months for the LESS group and 17 ± 3 months for the standard laparoscopic group. ? LESS pyeloplasty procedures were all performed using a single‐port device in the umbilicus and suturing was assisted with a 2‐mm grasping instrument. Perioperative variables, successful relief of obstruction and HRQL measurements were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

? Except for a lower body mass index in the LESS group (23 ± 6 kg/m² vs 30 ± 7 kg/m², P= 0.002), no difference was noted for perioperative variables between the two cohorts, including hospital stay and analgesic requirement. ? No significant HRQL advantage was noted for either group based on a six‐item non‐validated questionnaire. ? All patients in both groups experienced clinical resolution of their symptoms. A patient in the standard laparoscopy group and two patients in the LESS group had T_½ > 20 min (0.063% vs 0.125%, P= 1.00) on diuretic radionuclide scanning. ? Limitations include the retrospective nature of the present study, as well as the relatively small study population and short follow‐up.

CONCLUSIONS

? No benefit was noted for LESS pyeloplasty over the standard laparoscopic procedure beyond aesthetic advantages. ? Further comparisons are needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to other LESS procedures.     

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery - current status and controversies

Scarless surgery is the Holy Grail of surgery and the very raison d'etre of Minimal Access Surgery was the reduction of scars and thereby pain and suffering of the patients. The work of Muhe and Mouret in the late 80s, paved the way for mainstream laparoscopic procedures and it rapidly became the method of choice for many intra-abdominal procedures. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a very exciting new modality in the field of minimal access surgery which works for further reducing the scars of standard laparoscopy and towards scarless surgery. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was developed for scarless surgery, but did not gain popularity due to a variety of reasons. NOTES stands for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery, a term coined by a consortium in 2005. NOTES remains a research technique with only a few clinical cases having been reported. The lack of success of NOTES seems to have spurred on the interest in single-incision laparoscopy as an eminently doable technique in the present with minimum visible scarring, rendering a 'scarless' effect. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is, a term coined by a multidisciplinary consortium in 2008 for single-incision laparoscopic surgery. These are complementary technologies with similar difficulties of access, lack of triangulation and inadequate instrumentation as of date. LESS seems to offer an advantage to surgeons with its familiar field of view and instruments similar to those used in conventional laparoscopy. LESS remains a evolving special technique used successfully in many a centre, but with a significant way to go before it becomes mainstream. It currently stands between standard laparoscopy and NOTES in the armamentarium of minimal access surgery. This article outlines the development of LESS giving an overview of all the techniques and devices available and likely to be available in the future.     

单孔腹腔镜根治性肾切除术治疗肾细胞癌

目的探讨应用单孔腹腔镜手术(laparo endoscopic single-site surgery,LESS)行根治性肾脏切除术治疗肾脏肿瘤的临床安全性及可行性。方法 2010年11月至2011年4月,我们应用单孔4通道(Quadport)单孔腹腔镜根治性肾脏切除术技术治疗3例肾脏肿瘤,1例为右侧中央型4.2cm肾肿瘤,另两例分别为左侧肾下极7.4cm和肾中部4.5cm肾肿瘤。经脐部切口将Quadport置入腹腔,采用5mm头部可弯腹腔镜和标准腹腔镜直器械实施标准经腹腔途径腹腔镜根治性肾脏切除术。记录患者手术时间、估计术中出血量、术中并发症、留置引流管时间、术后住院时间和术后病理等临床资料,并对结果进行分析。结果本组3例手术均由LESS完成,无加辅助通道、无转标准腹腔镜手术或开放手术完成病例。仔细实施手术步骤,避免过度钝性分离组织造成术中出血是手术顺利进行的基础。采用Quadport减少了器械间的相互干扰。根治性肾脏切除术手术操作时间分别为215、230、170min,估计术中出血量分别为100、100、150ml。本组手术无术中严重并发症。术后留置引流时间分别为4、3、2d,术后住院时间分别为8、10、8d。本组术后无继发性出血和切口感染病例。病理结果示肾透明细胞癌2例,肾嫌色细胞癌1例,无淋巴结转移,病理分期分别为pT1bN0M02例,pT2aN0M01例。本组未见肿瘤侵及肾周围组织。结论 LESS根治性肾脏切除术治疗肾脏肿瘤是安全可行的,但需要更多的研究来进一步验证。     

单孔腹腔镜精索静脉高位结扎术早期经验（附5例报告）

目的：初步探讨单孔腹腔镜精索静脉高位结扎术的可行性、安全性和优越性。方法：2010年7～12月应用单孔3通道技术,经腹腔途径进行双侧精索静脉高位结扎术5例。患者平均年龄31．6岁;平均体重指数24．0kg／m。;术中应用标准腹腔镜器械、Triport3孔通道和5mm头端可弯腹腔镜。记录患者手术时间、估计术中出血量、术中并发症、术后疼痛指数（VAPS）、术后住院时间等临床资料,并对结果进行分析。结果：5例均顺利完成手术,无中转为标准腹腔镜或者开放手术。平均手术时问60．1min;中位术中出血量5ml;无术中并发症;中位VAPS为1分;术后切口均愈合良好,外观几乎无可见瘢痕;平均术后住院时间2天。结论：单孔腹腔镜精索静脉高位结扎术有良好的临床可行性和安全性,几乎无可见瘢痕。但其临床效果尚需进一步大样本临床对照研究予以证实。     

经自然腔道内镜技术和单孔腹腔镜技术在结直肠外科手术中的应用

经自然腔道内镜手术（NOTES）和单孔腹腔镜手术（LESS）是当今国际微创外科领域的研究与临床应用热点。NOTES技术尚待进一步的发展．而LESS技术是现阶段最可行的体表“无疤痕”技术。是NOTES技术的过渡阶段。虽然腹腔镜辅助的NOTES结直肠手术和完全的NOTES结直肠手术已经见诸报道．但是该手术目前仍然主要处于动物试验阶段。LESS技术在结直肠手术中的应用已经较为广泛．其可行性已经为较多的文献资料证实．而其是否符合肿瘤根治原则尚需进一步的研究确定。     

Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML)

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.     

Complications and conversions of upper tract urological laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery (LESS): multicentre experience: results from the NOTES Working Group

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Several studies have shown the feasibility of performing both complex and reconstructive laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgical procedures in urology. To date, no studies have evaluated the rates of conversion to conventional laparoscopy and complications at the time of LESS procedures in urology. This study, a compilation of results from members of the NOTES working group, is the first study to address the rates of complications and conversions to conventional laparoscopy at the time of LESS surgery in urology.

OBJECTIVE

? To present complications and rates of conversion from LESS to conventional laparoscopy (CL) at the time of upper tract LESS urologic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? Patients undergoing LESS upper tract procedures between September, 2007 and November, 2008 (n = 125) were identified at six high‐volume academic centers pioneering urologic LESS procedures. All LESS procedures were performed transperitoneally via a single umbilical incision using either adjacent conventional trocars or a dedicated single‐site access device. Reconstructive procedures incorporating a single planned 2 mm accessory needle port were included as LESS procedures and were not considered conversions. ? Patients, undergoing LESS procedures requiring conversion to CL with the placement of additional ports were identified. Conversion was defined as the placement of additional 5 or 10/12 mm ports beyond the primary incision. In each case the operative reports were reviewed, the reason for conversion was determined, and the number and types of additional ports and complications were noted.

RESULTS

? Upper tract LESS procedures were performed in 125 patients comprising 13.3% of the total 937 laparoscopic procedures performed at the participating institutions during this time period. Conversion to CL was necessary in 7 patients (5.6%) undergoing LESS requiring the addition of 2–5 ports. ? Reasons for conversion included: facilitate dissection in 3 (43%), facilitate reconstruction in 3 (43%), and control of bleeding in 1 (14%). All attempted LESS cases were completed laparoscopically without need for open conversion. ? Complications occurred in 15.2% of patients undergoing LESS surgery. Three of the 7 patients that required conversion to CL developed postoperative complications (Clavien grade II in two and IIIa in one). ? Limitations of this study included the inability to standardize LESS patient selection criteria, instrumentation and surgical technique as well as the lack of available complete data from a CL control group for comparison.

CONCLUSION

? LESS surgery is technically feasible for a variety of upper urinary tract reconstructive and ablative procedures, although it appears to be associated with higher rates of complications than in mature CL series. Conversion to CL occurs infrequently and may be a reflection of stringent patient selection.     

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) splenectomy with a conventional laparoscope and instruments

Background and Objectives:

We present 2 cases of laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) splenectomy performed with a conventional laparoscope and instruments, and the use of a novel internal retraction device.

Methods:

One patient underwent LESS splenectomy for idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), and a pediatric patient with sickle cell disease underwent LESS splenectomy and cholecystectomy. In each case, a 2-cm vertical incision was made within the confines of the umbilical ring, and a SILS port (Covidien, Norwalk CT) inserted. A 5-mm, 30-degree laparoscope and standard 5-mm instruments were used. After isolation of the splenic hilum, one 5-mm trocar of the SILS port was upsized to 12mm, and a laparoscopic stapler was used to divide the splenic artery and vein. An internal retractor consisting of a laparoscopic bulldog clamp with a hook attachment was used to retract the gallbladder, and to secure the specimen retrieval bag during splenic extraction, which eliminated the need for a fourth trocar.

Results:

Total operative time was 160 minutes for the LESS splenectomy, and 216 minutes for the LESS splenectomy and cholecystectomy. Both procedures were successfully completed with conventional instrumentation and a SILS port, without the need for additional incisions or trocars. No complications occurred, and both patients had an uneventful recovery.

Conclusions:

LESS splenectomy is a feasible procedure that can be performed safely. Although articulating instruments and laparoscopes may offer advantages, they are not necessary for performing LESS splenectomy.     

In vivo miniature robots for natural orifice surgery: State of the art and future perspectives

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is the integration of laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery techniques with endoscopic technology. Despite the advances in NOTES technology, the approach presents several unique instrumentation and technique-specific challenges. Current flexible endoscopy platforms for NOTES have several drawbacks including limited stability, triangulation and dexterity, and lack of adequate visualization, suggesting the need for new and improved instrumentation for this approach. Much of the current focus is on the development of flexible endoscopy platforms that incorporate robotic technology. An alternative approach to access the abdominal viscera for either a laparoscopic or NOTES procedure is the use of small robotic devices that can be implanted in an intracorporeal manner. Multiple, independent, miniature robots can be simultaneously inserted into the abdominal cavity to provide a robotic platform for NOTES surgery. The capabilities of the robots include imaging, retraction, tissue and organ manipulation, and precise maneuverability in the abdominal cavity. Such a platform affords several advantages including enhanced visualization, better surgical dexterity and improved triangulation for NOTES. This review discusses the current status and future perspectives of this novel miniature robotics platform for the NOTES approach. Although these technologies are still in pre-clinical development, a miniature robotics platform provides a unique method for addressing the limitations of minimally invasive surgery, and NOTES in particular.     

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in Biliary and Pancreatic Diseases

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for gallbladder removal and the most common laparoscopic procedure worldwide. With the advent of laparoscopic surgery and its continuous development, the focus has shifted to ‘scarless’ surgery. In recent times, the innovative technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been applied in gallbladder removal and even more complex biliopancreatic procedures to further minimize the invasiveness of the surgery. Newer developments in laparoscopic equipments and instrumentation have helped to further evolve this field of minimally invasive surgery. Literature search was performed using the following online search engines: Google, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and the online Springer link library. The terms used for the search were as follows: SILS, LESS, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, single-port laparoscopic surgery, SILS cholecystectomy, and SILS pancreatic surgery. Articles that matched the search criteria were selected and extensively reviewed. Moreover, pertinent information on instrumentation and technology for SILS and LESS was obtained by accessing websites of manufacturers. Although SILS represents the search for an essentially scarless surgery, there is still not a widespread use and uniformity of this procedure. SILS is performed either by single- or multiple-port technique. In the present article, we present a review of the potential benefits, limitations, and risks of SILS in biliary and pancreatic diseases. There are many studies showing benefits in cholecystectomy. A few case reports have also emerged about its feasibility in procedures such as cystogastrostomy and limited pancreatic resection. Further research and development of this technique is needed to arrive at a tangible conclusion about the perceived benefits of SILS. Randomized studies to compare SILS with traditional laparoscopy are essential.     

Natural orifice translumenal surgery: Flexible platform review

Natural orifice translumenal surgery (NOTES) has garnished significant attention from surgeons and gastroenterologists, due to the fusion of flexible endoscopy and operative technique. Preliminary efforts suggest that NOTES holds potential for a less invasive approach with certain surgical conditions. Many of the hurdles encountered during the shift from open to laparoscopic surgery are now being revisited in the development of NOTES. Physician directed efforts, coupled with industry support, have brought about several NOTES specific devices and platforms to help address limitations with current instrumentation. This review addresses current flexible platforms and their attributes, advantages, disadvantages and limitations.     

单孔腹腔镜在妇科恶性肿瘤治疗中的利与弊

单孔腹腔镜手术(laparoendoscopic single site surgery,LESS)是新一代外科微创手术,在微创理念上优于传统腹腔镜手术,是传统多孔腹腔镜技术的发展和补充。近几年,LESS在妇科领域快速发展,在妇科恶性肿瘤治疗中也逐渐开展。由于LESS所需腔镜和操作器械均通过单一部位切口,与传统多孔腹腔镜手术区别很大。笔者结合文献及开展妇科恶性肿瘤LESS经验对单孔腹腔镜在妇科恶性肿瘤治疗中的利与弊进行阐述。     

New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: Review of literature

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most commonlyperformed abdominal intervention in Western countries. In an attempt to reduce the invasiveness of the procedure, surgeons have developed single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC), minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy(MLC) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(NOTES). The aim of this review was to determine the role of these new minimally invasive approaches for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of gallstone related disease. Current literature remains insufficient for the correct assessment of emerging techniques for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. None of these procedures has demonstrated clear benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SILC cannot be currently recommended as it can be associated with an increased risk of bile duct injury and incisional hernia incidence. NOTES cholecystectomy is still experimental, although hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy is gaining popularity in clinical practice. As it is standardized and almost identical to the standard laparoscopic technique, MLC could lead to limited benefits without exposing patients to increased postoperative complications, being therefore adoptable for routine elective cholecystectomy. Technical challenges of SILC and NOTES cholecystectomy could be addressed with the evolution of new surgical tools that need to catch up with the innovative minds of surgeons. Regardless the place of these approaches in the future, robotization may be necessary to impose them as standard treatment.     

Early comparison of nephrectomy options in children (open, transperitoneal laparoscopic, laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS), and robotic surgery)

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? For pediatric patients with nonfunctioning or poorly‐functioning kidneys, laparoscopic nephrectomy has been shown to be a safe, viable option to traditional open surgery, with potential advantages of shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain medication usage, and improved cosmesis. Technological advances have expanded the surgical options for nephrectomy beyond traditional laparoscopy to robot‐assisted laparoscopy and, more recently, to laparo‐ endoscopic single‐site (LESS) surgery, which is also known as single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) or “belly‐button” surgery. This study compares the perioperative parameters of three minimally invasive modalities for pediatric nephrectomy: traditional laparoscopic nephrectomy (LAP), robotic‐assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (RALN), and laparo‐endoscopic single‐site nephrectomy (LESS), where these parameters are compared to those of a comparable series of patients undergoing traditional open nephrectomy (OPEN) during the same time period. This study demonstrates that the minimally invasive modalities for nephrectomy in children, including LESS nephrectomy, are associated with shorter lengths of hospital stay and decreased postoperative pain medication usage when compared to open surgery, and where LESS nephrectomy is associated with similar surgical times, lengths of hospital stay, and postoperative pain medication usage as the other minimally invasive modalities (LAP and RALN).

OBJECTIVE

• ? To compare the perioperative parameters of paediatric patients who underwent nephrectomy via laparo‐endoscopic single site (LESS) surgery (also known as single incision laparoscopic surgery or SILS) with those who underwent nephrectomy via conventional laparoscopy (LAP), robotic‐assisted laparoscopy (RALN), and open surgery (OPEN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• ? The medical records of 69 paediatric patients at a single institution who underwent nephrectomies for non‐functioning kidneys in 72 renal units (39 OPEN, 11 LAP, 11 RALN and 11 LESS) were reviewed for patient demographics and perioperative clinical parameters.

RESULTS

• ? The minimally invasive modalities in children, including LESS nephrectomy, were associated with shorter lengths of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and decreased postoperative pain medication usage (P < 0.001) than with open surgery.
• ? Similar surgical times were noted with LESS and the other minimally invasive modalities (LAP and RALN) (P= 0.056). However, the minimally invasive modalities (LESS, LAP and RALN) were associated with slightly longer surgical times when compared with open surgery (P < 0.001), which may, in part, be secondary to learning curve factors.
• ? No differences were noted among the minimally invasive modalities for postoperative pain medication usage (P= 0.354) and length of hospital stay (P= 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

• ? The minimally invasive modalities for nephrectomy in children, including LESS nephrectomy, are associated with shorter lengths of hospital stay and decreased postoperative pain medication use when compared with open surgery.
• ? LESS nephrectomy in children is associated with similar surgical times, lengths of hospital stay and postoperative pain medication use as the other minimally invasive modalities (LAP and RALN).
• ? Slightly longer surgical times are noted with the minimally invasive modalities, including LESS nephrectomy, when compared with open surgery, which may, in part, be secondary to learning curve factors.

     

Pure single-port laparoscopic surgery or mix of techniques?

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.