PURPOSE: We report our experience to date with 171 patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for diverse urologic diseases in a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2008 and August 2010, we performed 171 consecutive laparoendoscopic single-site surgeries. These included simple nephrectomy (n=18; robotic surgeries, n=1), radical nephrectomy (n=26; robotic surgeries, n=2), partial nephrectomy (n=59; robotic surgeries, n=56), nephroureterectomy (n=20; robotic surgeries, n=12), pyeloplasty (n=4), renal cyst decortications (n=22), adrenalectomy (n=4; robotic surgeries, n=2), ureterolithotomy (n=10), partial cystectomy (n=3), ureterectomy (n=1), urachal mass excision (n=1), orchiectomy (n=1), seminal vesiculectomy (n=1), and retroperitoneal mass excision (n=1). All procedures were performed by use of a homemade single-port device with a wound retractor and surgical gloves. A prospective study was performed to evaluate outcomes in 171 cases. RESULTS: Of the 171 patients, 98 underwent conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and 73 underwent robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Mean patient age was 53 years, mean operative time was 190.8 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 204 ml. Intraoperative complications occurred in seven cases (4.1%), and postoperative complications in nine cases (5.3%). There were no complications classified as Grade IIIb or higher (Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical complications). Conversion to mini-incision open surgery occurred in seven (4.1%) cases. Regarding oncologic outcomes, no cancer-related events occurred during follow-up other than one aggressive progression of Ewing sarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases; however, surgical experience and long-term follow-up are needed to test the superiority of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery.
PURPOSE: We report our experience to date with 171 patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for diverse urologic diseases in a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2008 and August 2010, we performed 171 consecutive laparoendoscopic single-site surgeries. These included simple nephrectomy (n=18; robotic surgeries, n=1), radical nephrectomy (n=26; robotic surgeries, n=2), partial nephrectomy (n=59; robotic surgeries, n=56), nephroureterectomy (n=20; robotic surgeries, n=12), pyeloplasty (n=4), renal cyst decortications (n=22), adrenalectomy (n=4; robotic surgeries, n=2), ureterolithotomy (n=10), partial cystectomy (n=3), ureterectomy (n=1), urachal mass excision (n=1), orchiectomy (n=1), seminal vesiculectomy (n=1), and retroperitoneal mass excision (n=1). All procedures were performed by use of a homemade single-port device with a wound retractor and surgical gloves. A prospective study was performed to evaluate outcomes in 171 cases. RESULTS: Of the 171 patients, 98 underwent conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and 73 underwent robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Mean patient age was 53 years, mean operative time was 190.8 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 204 ml. Intraoperative complications occurred in seven cases (4.1%), and postoperative complications in nine cases (5.3%). There were no complications classified as Grade IIIb or higher (Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical complications). Conversion to mini-incision open surgery occurred in seven (4.1%) cases. Regarding oncologic outcomes, no cancer-related events occurred during follow-up other than one aggressive progression of Ewing sarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases; however, surgical experience and long-term follow-up are needed to test the superiority of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery.
Authors: Mihir M Desai; Andre K Berger; Ricardo Brandina; Monish Aron; Brian H Irwin; David Canes; Mahesh R Desai; Pradeep P Rao; Rene Sotelo; Robert Stein; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Urology Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Monish Aron; David Canes; Mihir M Desai; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Mathias Wolters; Florian Imkamp; Lucy Wohlatz; Stephan Jutzi; Christoph A von Klot; Markus A Kuczyk; Axel S Merseburger; Ute Walcher; Udo Nagele; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-05-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Joo Yong Lee; June Hyun Han; Hong Sang Moon; Tag Keun Yoo; Hong Yong Choi; Seung Wook Lee Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 4.226