Abhay Rané1, Prokar Dasgupta. 1. Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital, Canada Avenue, Redhill, Surrey RH1 5RH, UK. arane@btinternet.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The GelPort Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy (HAL) device was licensed for use in the U.K. in September 2001. We compared our experience with this second-generation device with that of first-generation devices; i.e., the Handport, launched in 1999, and the Intromit, first marketed in 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively compared a number of parameters for operations performed using the GelPort (13 radical nephrectomies, 4 nephroureterectomies) with those performed using the Handport (3 radical nephrectomies, 2 nephroureterectomies, 2 simple nephrectomies) and the Intromit (2 radical nephrectomies, 1 nephroureterectomy, 2 simple nephrectomies). The main outcome measures were ease of application, time required to place the device, and perioperative complications specific to the device. RESULTS: The device requiring the longest time to place was the Intromit (average 15 minutes) followed by the HandPort (average 10 minutes) and then the GelPort (average 5 minutes). There were two leaks with the Intromit (one major and one minor). Pop-outs were a frequent issue with the HandPort, necessitating repeated replacement and resufflation. There was also a need to resufflate every time the hand was removed for a change of swab. None of these problems was noted with the GelPort, which was also found to be the easiest to use. The major disadvantage of the GelPort was its price, which was about a third more than that of the first-generation devices. CONCLUSION: The GelPort is currently a more user-friendly and robust HAL device. It is, however, more expensive than first-generation devices.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The GelPort Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy (HAL) device was licensed for use in the U.K. in September 2001. We compared our experience with this second-generation device with that of first-generation devices; i.e., the Handport, launched in 1999, and the Intromit, first marketed in 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively compared a number of parameters for operations performed using the GelPort (13 radical nephrectomies, 4 nephroureterectomies) with those performed using the Handport (3 radical nephrectomies, 2 nephroureterectomies, 2 simple nephrectomies) and the Intromit (2 radical nephrectomies, 1 nephroureterectomy, 2 simple nephrectomies). The main outcome measures were ease of application, time required to place the device, and perioperative complications specific to the device. RESULTS: The device requiring the longest time to place was the Intromit (average 15 minutes) followed by the HandPort (average 10 minutes) and then the GelPort (average 5 minutes). There were two leaks with the Intromit (one major and one minor). Pop-outs were a frequent issue with the HandPort, necessitating repeated replacement and resufflation. There was also a need to resufflate every time the hand was removed for a change of swab. None of these problems was noted with the GelPort, which was also found to be the easiest to use. The major disadvantage of the GelPort was its price, which was about a third more than that of the first-generation devices. CONCLUSION: The GelPort is currently a more user-friendly and robust HAL device. It is, however, more expensive than first-generation devices.
Authors: Nishanthan Mahesan; Sirazum M Choudhury; M Shamim Khan; Declan G Murphy; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.891