Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany,Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists

Purpose

Laparoscopy introduction has dramatically changed urology. Novel techniques, such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), might also have substantial influence. This 2012 survey evaluated present laparoscopy use, its appraisal among urologic surgeons, laparoscopy training, and use of new techniques. Results were compared to the previous surveys, demonstrating the 10-year development of laparoscopy.

Methods

A detailed questionnaire regarding demographic data, laparoscopy use, attitudes concerning laparoscopy, and novel techniques was send to 424 departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Procedures performed in 25 indications were quantitatively evaluated.

Results

The response rate was 63 % (269). Eighty-six percent of the respondents reported performing laparoscopy, compared to 54 % in 2002. Only 16 % expected economic advantages with laparoscopy, whereas 67 % expected shorter hospitalization. Seventy percent of responders anticipated comparable functional and oncological results between laparoscopic procedures and open surgery. Slow learning curves (81 %) and insufficient training facilities (32 %) were reported to impair laparoscopic surgery. On average, laparoscopic and non-laparoscopic surgical teams consisted of 2.5 and 3.5 members, respectively. LESS procedures were performed at 15 % of institutions. Twenty-two percent of respondents considered NOTES techniques valuable for future urology. Few indications (laparoscopic prostatectomies or nephrectomies) were performed frequently in specialized centers, and the rapidly increasing procedure numbers observed between 2002 and 2007 had dropped to a mild accretion. The results demonstrate broad acceptance of laparoscopy in German urologic surgery, depict the need for structured training facilities, and indicate limited impact of novel techniques (LESS and NOTES).

Conclusions

The survey demonstrates the 10-year development of urologic laparoscopy and the broad acceptance of laparoscopic techniques.     

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.     

EAU Guidelines on Robotic and Single-site Surgery in Urology

Context

This is a short version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology, as created in 2013 by the EAU Guidelines Office Panel on Urological Technologies.

Objective

To evaluate current evidence regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology and to provide clinical recommendations.

Evidence acquisition

A comprehensive online systematic search of the literature according to Cochrane recommendations was performed in July 2012, identifying data from 1990 to 2012 regarding robotic and single-site surgery in urology.

Evidence synthesis

There is a lack of high-quality data on both robotic and single-site surgery for most upper and lower urinary tract operations. Mature evidence including midterm follow-up data exists only for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In the absence of high-quality data, the guidelines panel's recommendations were based mostly on the review of low-level evidence and expert opinions.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted urologic surgery is an emerging and safe technology for most urologic operations. Further documentation including long-term oncologic and functional outcomes is deemed necessary before definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority or not of robotic assistance compared with the conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a novel laparoscopic technique providing a potentially superior cosmetic outcome over conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, further advantages offered by this technology are still under discussion and not yet proven. Due to the technically demanding character of the single-site approach, only experienced laparoscopic surgeons should attempt this technique in clinical settings.

Patient summary

This work represents the shortened version of the 2013 European Association of Urology guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery. The authors systematically evaluated published evidence in these fields and concluded that robotic assisted surgery is possible and safe for most urologic operations. Whilst laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is performed using the fewest incisions, the balance between risk and benefit is currently unclear. The evidence to support the conclusions in this guideline was generally poor, but best for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. As such, these recommendations were based upon expert opinion, and further high-quality research is needed in this field.     

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.     

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has gained popularity in urology over the last few years.

Objective

To report a large multi-institutional worldwide series of LESS in urology.

Design, setting, and participants

Consecutive cases of LESS done between August 2007 and November 2010 at 18 participating institutions were included in this retrospective analysis.

Intervention

Each group performed a variety of LESS procedures according to its own protocols, entry criteria, and techniques.

Measurements

Demographic data, main perioperative outcome parameters, and information related to the surgical technique were gathered and analyzed. Conversions to reduced-port laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy, or open surgery were evaluated, as were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results and limitations

Overall, 1076 patients were included in the analysis. The most common procedures were extirpative or ablative operations in the upper urinary tract. The da Vinci robot was used to operate on 143 patients (13%). A single-port technique was most commonly used and the umbilicus represented the most common access site. Overall, operative time was 160 ± 93 min and estimated blood loss was 148 ± 234 ml. Skin incision length at closure was 3.5 ± 1.5 cm. Mean hospital stay was 3.6 ± 2.7 d with a visual analog pain score at discharge of 1.5 ± 1.4. An additional port was used in 23% of cases. The overall conversion rate was 20.8%; 15.8% of patients were converted to reduced-port laparoscopy, 4% to conventional laparoscopy/robotic surgery, and 1% to open surgery. The intraoperative complication rate was 3.3%. Postoperative complications, mostly low grade, were encountered in 9.5% of cases.

Conclusions

This study provides a global view of the evolution of LESS in the field of minimally invasive urologic surgery. A broad range of procedures have been effectively performed, primarily in the academic setting, within diverse health care systems around the world. Since LESS is performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, the risk of complications remains low when stringent patient-selection criteria are applied.     

Evaluation of a blended learning surgical skills course for rural surgeons

Background

Rural surgeons have unique learning needs not easily met by traditional continuing medical education courses.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team developed and implemented a skills curriculum focused on leadership and communication, advanced endoscopy, emergency urology, emergency gynecology, facial plastic surgery, ultrasound, and management of fingertip amputations.

Results

Twenty-five of 30 (89%) rural surgeons who completed a follow-up course evaluation reported that the knowledge acquired during the course had improved their practice and/or the quality of patient care, particularly by refining commonly used skills and expanding the care options they could offer to their patients. The surgeons reported incorporating changes in their communication and interaction with colleagues.

Conclusions

This course was successful, from participants' perspectives, in providing hands-on mentored training for a variety of skills that reflect the broad scope of practice of surgeons in rural areas. Attendees felt that their participation resulted in important behavior and practice changes.     

A Novel Robotic System for Single-port Urologic Surgery: First Clinical Investigation

Background

The idea of performing a laparoscopic procedure through a single abdominal incision was conceived with the aim of expediting postoperative recovery.

Objective

To determine the clinical feasibility and safety of single-port urologic procedures by using a novel robotic surgical system.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a prospective institutional review board–approved, Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term Study (IDEAL) phase 1 study. After enrollment, patients underwent a major urologic robotic single-port procedure over a 3-wk period in July 2010. The patients were followed for 3 yr postoperatively.

Intervention

Different types of urologic surgeries were performed using the da Vinci SP Surgical System. This system is intended to provide the same core clinical capabilities as the existing multiport da Vinci system, except that three articulating endoscopic instruments and an articulating endoscopic camera are inserted into the patient through a single robotic port.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The main outcomes were the technical feasibility of the procedures (as measured by the rate of conversions) and the safety of the procedures (as measured by the incidence of perioperative complications). Secondary end points consisted of evaluating other key surgical perioperative outcomes as well as midterm functional and oncologic outcomes.

Results and limitations

A total of 19 patients were enrolled in the study. Eleven of them underwent radical prostatectomy; eight subjects underwent nephrectomy procedures (partial nephrectomy, four; radical nephrectomy, two; and simple nephrectomy, two). There were no conversions to alternative surgical approaches. Overall, two major (Clavien grade 3b) postoperative complications were observed in the radical prostatectomy group and none in the nephrectomy group. At 1-yr follow-up, one radical prostatectomy patient experienced biochemical recurrence, which was successfully treated with salvage radiation therapy. The median warm ischemia time for three of the partial nephrectomies was 38 min. At 3-yr follow-up all patients presented a preserved renal function; none had tumor recurrence. Study limitations include the small sample and the lack of a control group.

Conclusions

We describe the first clinical application of a novel robotic platform specifically designed for single-port urologic surgery. Major urologic procedures were successfully completed without conversions. Further assessment is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

Patient summary

A novel purpose-built robotic system enables surgeons to perform safely and effectively a variety of major urologic procedures through a single small abdominal incision.

Trial registration

The study was registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02136121).     

The Effect of Product Safety Courses on the Adoption and Outcomes of LESS Surgery

Background and Objectives:

As technology in surgery evolves, the medical instrument industry is inevitability involved in promoting the use and appropriate (ie, effective and safe) application of its products. This study was undertaken to evaluate industry-supported product safety courses in laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery, by using the metrics of surgeons'' adoption of the technique, safety of the procedure, and surgeons'' perception of the surgery.

Methods:

LESS surgery courses that involved didactic lectures, operative videos, operation observation, collaborative learning, and simulation, were attended by 226 surgeons. With Florida Hospital Tampa Institutional Review Board approval, the surgeons were queried before and immediately after the course, to assess their attitudes toward LESS surgery. Then, well after the course, the surgeons were contacted, repeatedly if necessary, to complete questionnaires.

Results:

Before the course, 82% of the surgeons undertook more than 10 laparoscopic operations per month. Immediately after the course, 86% were confident that they were prepared to perform LESS surgery. Months after the course, 77% of the respondents had adopted LESS surgery, primarily cholecystectomy; 59% had added 1 or more trocars in 0–20% of their procedures; and 73% held the opinion that operating room observation was the most helpful learning experience. Complications with LESS surgery were noted 12% of the time. Advantages of the technique were better cosmesis (58%) and patient satisfaction (38%). Disadvantages included risk of complications (37%) and higher technical demand (25%). Seventy-eight percent viewed LESS surgery as an advancement in surgical technique.

Conclusion:

In multifaceted product safety courses, operating room observation is thought to provide the most helpful instruction for those wanting to undertake LESS surgery. The procedure has been safely adopted by surgeons who frequently perform laparoscopies. The tradeoff is in performing a more difficult technique to obtain better cosmesis for the patient. We must continue to conduct critical evaluations of product safety courses for the introduction of new technology in surgery.     

Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery?

Background  

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are prospected as the future of minimally invasive surgery. While scarless surgery (NOTES and LESS) is gaining increasing popularity, perception of these approaches should be investigated.     

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.     

Technique of Laparoscopic-Endoscopic Single-Site Surgery Radical Nephrectomy

Background

Laparoscopic-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) represents the closest surgical technique to scar-free surgery.

Objective

To assess the feasibility of LESS radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN).

Design, setting, and participants

Ten patients with body mass index (BMI) ≤30 underwent LESS-RN for renal tumour by two experienced laparoscopists.

Surgical procedure

TriPort (Olympus Winter &; Ibe, Hamburg, Germany) was inserted through a transumbilical incision. A combination of standard laparoscopic instruments and flexible grasper and scissors was used. A 5-mm 30° camera was also used. The standard laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy technique was performed.

Measurements

Patient demographics, operative details, and final pathology were prospectively recorded. Postoperative evaluation of pain and use of analgesic medication were recorded.

Results and limitations

Ten cases were successfully accomplished (two right-sided tumours and eight left-sided tumours; tumour diameter ranges: 4–8 cm). The mean patient age was 63.5 yr (22–77 yr), and median BMI was 23.56 (18.2–26.6). The mean operative time was 146.4 min (120–180 min), and the mean blood loss was 202 ml (50–900 ml). Pathological examination observed organ-confined T1 renal cell carcinoma in nine cases and pT3b tumour in one case. One bleeding complication occurred. Limitations regarding the intraoperative instrument ergonomics and the requirement for ambidexterity of the surgeon were noted.

Conclusions

LESS-RN proved to be safe and feasible. Further clinical investigation in comparison to the established techniques should take place to evaluate the outcome of LESS-RN.     

A survey-based assessment of the Canadian pediatric surgery workforce

Background

There is significant lack of information regarding the Canadian pediatric surgery workforce.

Methods

An IRB-approved survey aimed at assessing workforce issues was administered to pediatric surgeons and pediatric surgery chiefs in Canada in 2012.

Results

The survey was completed by 98% of practicing surgeons and 13 of the 18 division chiefs. Only 6% of surgeons are older than 60 years, and only a fifth anticipate retirement over the next decade. The workforce is stable, with 82% of surgeons unlikely to change current positions. Surgical volume showed essentially no growth during the 5-year period 2006–2010. The majority of surgeons felt they were performing the right number or too few cases and anticipated minimal or no future growth in their individual practices or that of their group. Based on anticipated vacancies, the best estimate is a need for 20 new pediatric surgeons over the next decade. This need is significantly surpassed by the current output from the Canadian training programs.

Conclusions

The Canadian pediatric surgery workforce is currently saturated. The mismatch between the number of graduating trainees and the available positions over the next decade has significant repercussions for current surgery and pediatric surgery residents wishing to practice in Canada.     

EAU Policy on Live Surgery Events

Context

Live surgery is an important part of surgical education, with an increase in the number of live surgery events (LSEs) at meetings despite controversy about their real educational value, risks to patient safety, and conflicts of interest.

Objective

To provide a European Association of Urology (EAU) policy on LSEs to regulate their organisation during urologic meetings.

Evidence acquisition

The project was carried out in phases: a systematic literature review generating key questions, surveys sent to Live Surgery Panel members, and Internet- and panel-based consensus finding using the Delphi process to agree on and formulate a policy.

Evidence synthesis

The EAU will endorse LSEs, provided that the EAU Code of Conduct for live surgery and all organisational requirements are followed. Outcome data must be submitted to an EAU Web-based registry and complications reported using the revised Martin criteria. Regular audits will take place to evaluate compliance as well as the educational role of live surgery.

Conclusions

This policy represents the consensus view of an expert panel established to advise the EAU. The EAU recognises the educational role of live surgery and endorses live case demonstration at urologic meetings that are conducted within a clearly defined regulatory framework. The overriding principle is that patient safety must take priority over all other considerations in the conduct of live surgery.

Patient summary

Controversy exists regarding the true educational value of live surgical demonstrations on patients at surgical meetings. An EAU committee of experts developed a policy on how best to conduct live surgery at urologic meetings. The key principle is to ensure safety for every patient, including a code of conduct and checklist for live surgery, specific rules for how the surgery is organised and performed, and how each patient's results are reported to the EAU. For detailed information, please visit www.uroweb.org.     

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.     

Feasibility of Robotic Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors >4 cm

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) urologic procedures have gained significant interest worldwide in an attempt to further reduce morbidity and minimize scarring associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery. The robotic technology has overcome some of the limitations of manual single-incision surgery relating to lack of triangulation, instrument collision, and surgical exposure. There are no data on robotic LESS partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal tumors >4 cm.

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility of robotic LESS PN for renal tumors >4 cm.

Design, setting, and participants

Data from 67 consecutive patients who underwent robotic LESS PN were collected between May 2009 to January 2011.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Patients were stratified into two groups: 20 patients with renal tumors >4 cm (group 1) and 47 patients with renal tumors ≤4 cm (group 2). Perioperative data were recorded and comparisons between the two groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

Results and limitations

No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in demographic information, operative complications, pathologic characteristics, mean decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, estimated blood loss, operative times, conversion rate, or positive surgical margins. However, group 1 had a higher mean nephrometry score (p < 0.01), longer warm ischemia time (p = 0.007), and longer length of stay (p = 0.046). Its retrospective design and being conducted at a single center were the main limitations of this study.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic LESS PN for tumors >4 cm. Patients with tumors >4 cm had a statistically significant, higher mean nephrometry score, longer warm ischemia time, and longer length of stay, but there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. A long-term study is needed to confirm the durable renal preservation and oncologic outcomes for patients with larger tumor burden.     

Feasibility of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery–Assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy: Is Kidney Vaginal Delivery the Approach of the Future?

Background

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) uses natural orifices to access the abdominal cavity. We adapted NOTES to perform transvaginal NOTES-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors.

Objective

To assess the feasibility and reproducibility of this procedure and compare it with conventional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

Design, setting, and participants

From July 2009 to October 2010, 20 women underwent transvaginal NOTES-assisted living donor nephrectomy (LDN) in our centre. We compared the prospectively collected clinical data of each donor with those of a contemporaneous matched pair of conventional LLDNs (40 donors).

Surgical procedure

The procedure was performed using three abdominal trocars and one trocar through the vaginal wall.

Measurements

Variables evaluated for donors were procedure length, blood loss, warm ischaemia time (WIT), complications, hospital stay, and first-month creatinine nadir. In the transvaginal LDN group, sexual function was assessed with the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaire before and after surgery. Variables evaluated for recipients were complications, graft function, and creatinine evolution.

Results and limitations

The procedure was completed in all cases. Operative variables were similar for both groups except for WIT, which was longer in the transvaginal LDN group (p < 0.001) without consequences for graft functioning. One transvaginal LDN case had postoperative bleeding requiring immediate open surgery. All transvaginal LDN donors reported unaltered sexual function after surgery and satisfaction with the results. All recipients had immediate urine output, and all had a functioning graft at last follow-up except for one recipient of the transvaginal LDN group who required transplantectomy. Despite promising results, randomised controlled studies with longer follow-up are warranted to further elucidate the potential of this novel technique.

Conclusions

Transvaginal NOTES-assisted LDN appears to be a feasible and reproducible surgical technique. The WIT was longer in the transvaginal group, and there was no effect on graft function after the short follow-up.     

Hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of upper urinary tract with the use of mini-laparoscopic instruments: cosmetic outcome and midterm oncological outcome

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of mini-laparoscopic instruments in combination with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) instruments for the performance of oncological urological surgery.

Methods

Thirty-five patients underwent oncological hybrid LESS either mini-laparoscopic-assisted LESS partial nephrectomy (LESS-PN, n = 12) or mini-laparoscopic-assisted LESS radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN, n = 23). Perioperative data were prospectively collected. The patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) was used for the evaluation of the cosmetic outcome.

Results

Mean tumor size treated by LESS-PNs was 28.8 (IQR 20.5–37.3) mm. Average operative time and blood loss were 123 (IQR 112.5–145) min and 158.3 (IQR 100–200) ml, respectively. Renal artery clamping took place in seven cases. LESS-RN was performed in cases with a mean tumor size of 60 (IQR 48–71.5) mm. The average operative time was 116.8 (IQR 100–130) min. Average blood loss was 137 (IQR 100–150) ml. Complications were limited to grade II according to Clavien classification. The oncological outcome, including midterm results, was directly comparable to the literature. Patients reported low pain scores and high satisfaction in terms of postoperative scarring. The POSAS scores confirmed the excellent cosmetic outcome of hybrid LESS.

Conclusion

The combination of mini-laparoscopic and LESS instrumentation as routine equipment of oncological surgery provided an efficient option for urologic surgery. The combination of mini-laparoscopic and LESS instruments improves the intraoperative ergonomics of LESS-PN and LESS-RN. The provided surgical and oncological outcome compares favorably to the LESS and conventional laparoscopic literature.

     

Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy for renal cancer: technique and surgical outcomes

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been developed in attempt to further reduce the morbidity and scarring associated with surgical intervention.

Objective

To describe the technique and report the surgical outcomes of LESS radical nephrectomy (RN) in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

Design, setting, and participants

LESS-RN was performed in 33 patients with renal tumours. The indications to perform a LESS-RN were represented by renal tumours not greater than T2 and without evidence of lymphadenopathy or renal vein involvement.

Surgical procedure

The Endocone (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) was inserted through a transumbilical incision. A combination of standard laparoscopic instruments and bent grasper and scissors was used. The sequence of steps of LESS-RN was comparable to standard laparoscopic RN.

Measurements

Demographic data and perioperative and postoperative variables were recorded and analysed.

Results and limitations

The mean operative time was 143.7 ± 24.3 min, with a mean estimated blood loss of 122.3 ± 34.1 ml and a mean hospital stay of 3.8 ± 0.8 d. The mean length of skin incision was 4.1 ± 0.6 cm and all patients were discharged from hospital with minimal discomfort, as demonstrated by their pain assessment scores (visual analogue scale: 1.9 ± 0.8). The definitive pathologic results revealed a renal cell carcinoma in all cases and a stage distribution of four T1a, 27 T1b, and 2 T2 tumours. All patients were very satisfied with the appearance of the scars, and at a median follow-up period of 13.2 ± 3.9 mo, all patients were alive without evidence of tumour recurrence or port-site metastasis.

Conclusions

LESS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for RN in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma and has excellent cosmetic results.