BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), an attempt to further enhance the cosmetic benefits of minimally invasive surgery while minimizing the potential morbidity associated with multiple incisions, has been developed recently. Our aim was to compare LESS simple nephrectomy (LESS-SN) and conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (CTL-SN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized study that was conducted between December 2008 and September 2009, 27 patients who needed simple nephrectomy were randomized to either LESS-SN or CTL-SN. All procedures in both groups were performed by the first author, who is experienced in laparoscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, perioperative details, and time to return to work were recorded. Postoperative evaluation of pain and use of analgesic medication were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in median operative time (117.5 vs 114 min, P = 0.52), blood loss (50.71 vs 47.15 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (2.07 vs 2.11 days, P = 0.74) between the LESS-SN and CTL-SN groups. Time to return to normal activities was shorter in the LESS-SN group compared with the CTL-SN group (10.7 vs 13.5 days, P = 0.001). Both the visual analogue scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in patients who underwent LESS-SN, compared with patients who underwent CTL-SN. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in both groups. Compared with CTL-SN, LESS-SN was more expensive, but all patients undergoing LESS-SN were very pleased with the cosmetic outcome (no visible scars). CONCLUSION: The early experience described in this study suggests that LESS-SN is a safe and effective alternative to CTL-SN that provides surgeons with a minimally invasive surgical option and the ability to hide the surgical incision within the umbilicus; however, a larger series is necessary to confirm these findings and to determine if there are any benefits in pain, recovery, or cosmesis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), an attempt to further enhance the cosmetic benefits of minimally invasive surgery while minimizing the potential morbidity associated with multiple incisions, has been developed recently. Our aim was to compare LESS simple nephrectomy (LESS-SN) and conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (CTL-SN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized study that was conducted between December 2008 and September 2009, 27 patients who needed simple nephrectomy were randomized to either LESS-SN or CTL-SN. All procedures in both groups were performed by the first author, who is experienced in laparoscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, perioperative details, and time to return to work were recorded. Postoperative evaluation of pain and use of analgesic medication were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in median operative time (117.5 vs 114 min, P = 0.52), blood loss (50.71 vs 47.15 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (2.07 vs 2.11 days, P = 0.74) between the LESS-SN and CTL-SN groups. Time to return to normal activities was shorter in the LESS-SN group compared with the CTL-SN group (10.7 vs 13.5 days, P = 0.001). Both the visual analogue scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in patients who underwent LESS-SN, compared with patients who underwent CTL-SN. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in both groups. Compared with CTL-SN, LESS-SN was more expensive, but all patients undergoing LESS-SN were very pleased with the cosmetic outcome (no visible scars). CONCLUSION: The early experience described in this study suggests that LESS-SN is a safe and effective alternative to CTL-SN that provides surgeons with a minimally invasive surgical option and the ability to hide the surgical incision within the umbilicus; however, a larger series is necessary to confirm these findings and to determine if there are any benefits in pain, recovery, or cosmesis.
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Michiel C Warlé; Michel F van der Jagt; Janneke P C Grutters; Sharon B C E van Horne; Heinrich J Kloke; Johannes A van der Vliet; Johan F Langenhuijsen; Frank C d'Ancona Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: C Schwentner; T Todenhöfer; J Seibold; S Alloussi; M Germann; S Aufderklamm; J Mischinger; A Stenzl; G Gakis Journal: Urologe A Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 0.639