Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery in Urology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Laparoscopic and Robotic Single Site Surgery

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 852 Accesses

Abstract

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) as an evolution of the conventional laparoscopic approach, in the pathway of minimally invasive surgery, should be evaluated comparatively to widely accepted procedures. According to a multi-institutional compilation of cases (Kaouk et al. Eur Urol. 60(5):998–1005, 2011), most LESS procedures (86 %) were performed in the upper urinary tract, with most of these being extirpative or ablative (84 %).

According to IDEAL recommendations (McCulloch et al. Lancet. 374(9695):1105–12, 2009), the steps to evaluate a new surgical technology are (1) an “innovation step” in which the surgical innovation is described for the first time; (2) a “development step” in which the surgical innovation is evaluated in a small group of patients to refine or modify the precise technique; and (3) an “exploration step” in which the safety and effectiveness of the surgical innovation can be tested in the context of prospective, single-center, case-series study utilizing a large number of cases. Only after these three steps can the effectiveness of surgical innovation be assessed (the “assessment step”) against current standard of treatment in the context of randomized controlled trials or non-randomized, well-designed comparative studies.

Herein, in order to comply with the IDEAL guidelines, we summarize reported complications from procedures including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy (radical or partial), donor nephrectomy, adrenalectomy, and pyeloplasty.

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

Access this chapter

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 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kaouk JH, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):998–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McCulloch P, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaouk JH, et al. Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72(6):1190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Caceres F, et al. Safety study of umbilical single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a new DuoRotate system. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):1143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. White MA, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy: technique and early outcomes. Eur Urol. 2010;58(4):544–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jiang C, et al. Extraperitoneal transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy using a homemade single-port device: 20 cases with midterm outcomes. World J Urol. 2014;32(3):829–36.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gao X, et al. Single-port transvesical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer: technique and outcomes. BJU Int. 2013;112(7):944–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar P, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) prostatectomy – robotic and conventional approach. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2010;62(4):425–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Silberstein JL, Power NE, Touijer KA. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) radical prostatectomy: a review of the initial experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2011;63(2):123–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Desai MM, et al. Transvesical robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1666–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrara V, et al. SILS extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2010;62(4):363–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tugcu V, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus standard laparoscopic simple nephrectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol. 2010;24(8):1315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurien A, et al. First prize: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a randomized comparative study. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):365–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Merseburger AS, et al. EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Eur Urol. 2013;64(2):277–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park YH, et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy with conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for localized renal-cell carcinoma. J Endourol. 2010;24(6):997–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seo IY, Lee JW, Rim JS. Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):465–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang L, et al. A matched-pair comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy by a single urologist. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):676–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. White MA, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: surgical technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fan X, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2012;62(4):601–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Greco F, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy result in equivalent surgical trauma: preliminary results of a single-centre retrospective controlled study. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1048–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mir SA, et al. Minimally invasive nephrectomy: the influence of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery on patient selection, outcomes, and morbidity. Urology. 2011;77(3):631–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA. Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1198–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greco F, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64(2):314–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tiu A, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4 cm. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):941–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gill IS, et al. Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;180(2):637–41; discussion 641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Canes D, et al. Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):95–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ganpule AP, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Urology. 2009;74(6):1238–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gimenez E, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: initial experience. J Urol. 2010;184(5):2049–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lunsford KE, et al. Single-site laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy offers comparable perioperative outcomes to conventional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy at a higher cost. Transplantation. 2011;91(2):e16–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Barth RN, et al. Single-port donor nephrectomy provides improved patient satisfaction and equivalent outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):527–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaouk JH, et al. Transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal surgery robotic donor nephrectomy: first clinical application. Urology. 2012;80(6):1171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Desai MM, et al. Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report. BJU Int. 2008;101(1):83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tracy CR, et al. Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009;74(5):1029–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tugcu V, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized study. Int J Urol. 2013;20(11):1112–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gill IS, et al. Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(4):762–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Best SL, et al. Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2011;108(8):1326–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Olweny EO, et al. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty. Eur Urol. 2012;61(2):410–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: outcomes of an international multi-institutional study of 140 patients. Urology. 2013;82(2):366–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hirano D, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors via a single large port. J Endourol. 2005;19(7):788–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Castellucci SA, et al. Single port access adrenalectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(8):1573–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Agha A, et al. Single-incision retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy and single-incision laparoscopic adrenalectomy. J Endourol. 2010;24(11):1765–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jeong CW, et al. Synchronous bilateral laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy. J Endourol. 2010;24(8):1301–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Walz MK, Groeben H, Alesina PF. Single-access retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (SARA) versus conventional retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (CORA): a case-control study. World J Surg. 2010;34(6):1386–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yuge K, et al. Initial experience of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of partial adrenalectomy in patient with aldosterone-producing adenoma. BMC Urol. 2010;10:19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Shi TP, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy: a matched-pair comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(7):2117–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rane A, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) adrenalectomy: technique and outcomes. World J Urol. 2012;30(5):597–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ishida M, et al. Technical difficulties of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy: comparison with conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy. World J Urol. 2013;31(1):199–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Idir Ouzaid MD & Vishnuvardhan Ganesan

  2. Department of Urology, Center for Robotic and Image Guided Surgery, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Georges-Pascal Haber MD, PhD (Associate Staff)

Authors
  1. Idir Ouzaid MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vishnuvardhan Ganesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georges-Pascal Haber MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georges-Pascal Haber MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Surgery, Department of Urology Cleveland Clinic Lerner, College of Medicine, Zagarek Pollock Chair in Robotic Surgery, Center for Robotic and Image guided Surgery, Glickman Urologic Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Jihad H. Kaouk

  2. Associate Professor of Surgery, Department of Urology, Center for Robotic and Image Guided Surgery, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Robert J. Stein

  3. Associate Staff, Department of Urology, Center for Robotic and Image Guided Surgery, Glickman Urological Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Georges-Pascal Haber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ouzaid, I., Ganesan, V., Haber, GP. (2017). Complications of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery in Urology. In: Kaouk, J., Stein, R., Haber, GP. (eds) Atlas of Laparoscopic and Robotic Single Site Surgery. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3575-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3575-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3573-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3575-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation