Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Difficult Conditions in Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery pp 7–18Cite as

Difficulties in Laparoscopic Access

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 647 Accesses

Abstract

Laparoscopic surgery has developed rapidly over the last few years, and many surgical procedures formerly carried out through large abdominal incisions are now performed laparoscopically. Reduction of the trauma of access by avoidance of large wounds has been the driving force for such development [1]. However, the insertion of needles and trocars necessary for the pneumoperitoneum and the performance of the procedure are not without risk [2]. The technical modifications imposed by surgical laparoscopy are obvious (e.g., number and size of trocars, location of insertion sites, specimen retrieval), and therefore morbidity may be substantially modified. Complications such as retroperitoneal vascular injury, intestinal perforation, wound herniation, wound infection, abdominal wall hematoma, and trocar site mestastasis have been reported [3].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cuschieri A. Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. Am J Surg. 1991;161:404–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fitzgibbons RJ, Salerno GM, Filipi CJ. Open laparoscopy. In: Zucker KA, editor. Surgical Laparoscopy. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 1991. p. 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mayol J, Garcia-Agular J, Ortiz-Oshiro E, De-Diego Carmona JA, Fernandez-Represa JA. Risks of the minimal access approach for laparoscopic surgery: multivariate analysis of morbidity related to umbilical trocar insertion. World J Surg. 1997;21:529–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pemberton JR, Tolley DA, Van Velthoven RF. Prevention and management of complications in urological laparoscopic port site placement. Eur Urol. 2006;50:958–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW. Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192:478–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhoyrul S, Vierra MA, Nezhat CR, Krummel TM, Way LW. Trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192:677–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P, Santoro E. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study in 12,919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:566–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Antevil JL, Bhoyrul S, Brunson ME, Vierra MA, Swadia ND. Safe and rapid laparoscopic access—a new approach. World J Surg. 2005;29:800–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Godfrey C, Wahle GR, Schilder JM, Rothenberg JM, Hurd WW. Occult bladder injury during laparoscopy: report of two cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;9:341–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hurd WW, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, Gauvin JM, Aisen AM. Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effect of obesity on the laparoscopic approach. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:473–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hurd WW, Amesse LS, Gruber JS, Horowitz GM, Cha GM, Hurteau JA. Visualization of the bladder and epigastric vessels prior to trocar placement in diagnostic and operative laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:209–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shafer DM, Khajanchee Y, Wong J, Swanström LL. Comparison of five different abdominal access trocar systems: analysis of insertion force, removal force and defect size. Surg Innov. 2006;13(3):183–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leibl BJ, Schmedt CG, Schwarz J, Kraft K, Bittner R. Laparoscopic surgery complications associated with trocar tip design: review of literature and own results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;9:135–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Corson SL, Chandler JG, Way LW. Survey of laparoscopic entry injuries provoking litigation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8:341–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ternamian AM. A trocarless, reusable, visual-access cannula for safer laparoscopy; an update. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(2):197–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Viterbo R, Greenberg RE, Al-Saleem T, Uzzo RG. Prior abdominal surgery and radiation do not complicate the retroperitoneoscopic approach to the kidney or adrenal gland. J Urol. 2005;174:446–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aron M, Desai MM, Rubenstein M, Gill I. Laparoscopic instrumentation. In: de la Rosette J, Gill I, editors. Laparoscopic urologic surgery in malignancies. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 271–85.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Marcovich R, Del Terzo MA, Wolf JS Jr. Comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic access techniques: Optiview visualizing trocar and Veress needle. J Endourol. 2000;14:175–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Seifman BD, Dunn RL, Wolf JR. Transperitoneal laparoscopy into the previously operated abdomen: effect on operative time, length of stay and complications. J Urol. 2003;169:36–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Franc-Guimond J, Kryger J, González R. Experience with the Bailez technique for laparoscopic access in children. J Urol. 2003;170:936–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hasson HM, Rotman C, Rana N, Kumari NA. Open laparoscopy: 29-year experience. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:763–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. String A, Berber E, Foroutani A, Macho JR, Pearl JM, Siperstein AE. Use of the optical access trocar for safe and rapid entry in various laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:570–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grundsell H, Larsson G. A modified laparoscopic entry technique using a finger. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;59:509–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gersin KS, Heniford BT, Arca MJ, Ponsky JL. Alternative site entry for laparoscopy in patients with previous abdominal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998;8:125–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thomas MA, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Optical access trocar injuries in urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol. 2003;170:61–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ternamian AM. Laparoscopy without trocars. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:815–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sharp HT, Dodson MK, Draper ML, Watts DA, Doucette RC, Hurd WW. Complications associated with optical-access laparoscopic trocars. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:553–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gill IS. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27:707–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Frede T, Loening SA. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2, 407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162:765–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sung GT, Gill IS. Anatomic landmarks and time management during retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2002;16:165–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Holtz G. Insufflation of the obese patient. In: Diamond MP, Corfman RS, DeCherney AH, editors. Complication of laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. 2. ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997. p. 22–5.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Preventive entry-related gynaecological laparoscopic injuries. Green-top Guideline 49. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/GT49PreventingLaparoscopicInjury2008.pdf. Published January 5, 2008. Accessed April 24, 2010.

  34. Parsons JK, Jarrett TJ, Chow GK, Kavoussi LR. The effect of previous abdominal surgery on urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2002;168:2387–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Audebert AJ, Gomel V. Role of microlaparoscopy in the diagnosis of peritoneal and visceral adhesions and in the prevention of bowel injury associated with blind trocar insertion. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:631–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ibrahim HM, Al-Kandari AM, Taqi A, et al. Etiology and management of adult giant hydronephrosis. Arab J Urol. 2008;6(2):21–5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Guleria K, Manjusha SA. Near fatal haemoperitoneum of rare origin following laparoscopic sterilization. J Postgrad Med. 2001;47:143.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

    Hamdy M. Ibrahim MD

  2. Department of Urology, Ahmadi Hospital, Ahmadi, Kuwait

    Hani S. Shaaban MD, MSc

  3. Department of Surgery (Urology), Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriyah, Kuwait

    Ahmed Al-Kandari BM BCh, FRCS(C)

  4. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Inderbir S. Gill MD

Authors
  1. Hamdy M. Ibrahim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hani S. Shaaban MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Al-Kandari BM BCh, FRCS(C)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Inderbir S. Gill MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamdy M. Ibrahim MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait

    Ahmed Al-Kandari

  2. Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat, India

    Arvind P. Ganpule

  3. Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Raed A. Azhar

  4. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Inderbir S. Gill

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ibrahim, H.M., Shaaban, H.S., Al-Kandari, A., Gill, I.S. (2018). Difficulties in Laparoscopic Access. In: Al-Kandari, A., Ganpule, A., Azhar, R., Gill, I. (eds) Difficult Conditions in Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52581-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52581-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52580-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52581-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation