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.
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.
Authors: Jihad H Kaouk; Wesley M White; Raj K Goel; Stacy Brethauer; Sebastien Crouzet; Raymond R Rackley; Courtenay Moore; Michael S Ingber; Georges-Pascal Haber Journal: Urology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: David Canes; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Ricardo Brandina; David A Goldfarb; Daniel Shoskes; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anibal W Branco; Alcides J Branco Filho; William Kondo; Rafael W Noda; Nilton Kawahara; Affonso A H Camargo; Luciano C Stunitz; Jarbas Valente; Marlon Rangel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rene Sotelo; Robert de Andrade; Golena Fernández; Daniel Ramirez; Eugenio Di Grazia; Oswaldo Carmona; Otto Moreira; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert J Stein; Wesley M White; Raj K Goel; Brian H Irwin; George Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A N Georgiou; J Rassweiler; T R Herrmann; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; Eta Mu Do; P Kallidonis; A de la Teille; R van Velthoven; M Burchardt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-07-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Tuba Avcil; Sabina Sevcenco; Udo Nagele; Thomas E W Hermann; Franklin E Kuehhas; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alexander Frankenschmidt; Ulrich Wetterauer; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Victor T Dubeux; Fabricio Carrerette; Gustavo Peçanha; Lucilio Medeiros; Pedro Gabrich; José Milfont; Ronaldo Damião Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.226