Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Port Placement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery

Abstract

Port placement represents the cornerstone of minimally invasive surgery procedures; an improper placement translates into difficulties leading to an extension of the operating time and sometimes requiring reposition of the trocars. As in laparoscopic surgery, there are complications in robotic surgery also when placing a port; carrying out a proper training and performing an adequate learning curve have shown a significant decrease in the rate of complications at this important phase. At the first step of surgery, pneumoperitoneum creation and primary trocar placement, is where the largest number of unwanted events occur. There are several techniques, which have proven to be equally effective, with similar rates of complications; therefore, the surgeon should use the method that s/he has more experience with and the one s/he feels more comfortable with. It is always important to individualize each case, to identify risk factors, and to choose the ideal techniques and instruments for prevention. In robotic surgery, there are special considerations regarding port placement, this allows a proper docking, avoiding a clash of the robot arms. Undoubtedly, no surgeon is free of complications, but an early diagnosis is crucial to resolve them timely and effectively, reducing this way the morbidity and mortality rate. Abdominal access and proper port placement without complications are key to the success of robotic surgery. When complications do occur, an excellent training will allow them to be managed appropriately.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Vilos G, Vilos A, Abu-Rafae B, Hollet-Caines J, Nikkhah-Abyaneh Z, Edris F. Three simple steps during closed laparoscopic entry may minimizes major injuries. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(4):758–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pemberton R, Tolley D, van Velthoven R. Prevention and management of complications in urological laparoscopic port site placement. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):958–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rabl C, Palazzo F, Aoki H, Campos G. Initial laparoscopic access using an optical trocar without pneumoperitoneum is safe and effective in the morbidity obese. Surg Innov. 2008;15(2):126–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Khrishnakumar S, Tambe P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009;1(1):4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Parsons J, Jarrett T, Chow G, Kavoussi L. The effect of previous abdominal surgery on urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2002;168(6):2387–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vilos G, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge P. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(5):433–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Curet M. Special problems in laparoscopic surgery. Previous abdominal surgery, and pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80(4):1093–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guleria K, Manjusha, Suneja A. Near fatal haemoperitoneum of rare origin following laparoscopic sterilization. J Postgrad Med. 2001;47(2):143.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Frede T, Loening S. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162(3):765–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Teoh B, Sen R, Abbott J. An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veres needle placement at closed laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(2):153–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Azevedo J, Azevedo O, Miyahira S, Miguel G, Becker O Jr, Hypólito O, et al. Injuries caused by Veress needle insertion for creation of pneumoperitoenum: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(7):1428–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahmad G, Gent D, Henderson D, O’Flynn H, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=74EB0D95A5AB4DE2FD2C5545A0FBE903.f04t03.

  13. Thomas M, Rha K, Ong A, Pinto P, Montgomery R, Kavoussi L, et al. Optical access trocar injuries in urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol. 2003;170(1):61–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shirk G, Johns A, Redwine D. Complications of laparoscopic surgery: how to avoid them and how to repair them. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(4):352–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13(1):1–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharp H, Dodson M, Draper M, Watts D, Doucette R, Hurd W. Complications associated with optical-access laparoscopic trocars. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(4):553–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Passerotti C, Begg N, Penna F, Passerotti A, Leite K, Antunes A, et al. Safety profile of trocar and insufflation needle access systems in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(2):222–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Ziaee S, Tabibi A, Nauralizadeh A, Radfar M, et al. Major vascular injury in laparoscopic urology. JSLS. 2014:18(3).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Suarez C. Chapter 12, Vascular complications in laparoscopy. In: Prevention & management of laparoendoscopic surgical complications [internet]. 1999. Available from: http://laparoscopy.blogs.com/prevention_management/chapter_12_vascular_surgery.

  20. Wind J, Cremers J, van Berge Henegouwen M, Gouma D, Jansen F, Bemelman W. Medical liability insurance claims on entry-related complications in laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):2094–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central University of Venezuela, Robotic Surgery Program Coordinator, University Hospital of Caracas, Ciudad Universitaria, Caracas, 1050, Dtto. Capital, Venezuela

    Alexis Sánchez MD, MSc

  2. Robotic Surgery Program, University Hospital of Caracas, Ciudad Universitaria, Caracas, 1050, Dtto. Capital, Venezuela

    Jose Rosciano MD

Authors
  1. Alexis Sánchez MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Rosciano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexis Sánchez MD, MSc .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    René Sotelo

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital CIMA, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

    Juan Arriaga

  3. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Monish Aron

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

Sánchez, A., Rosciano, J. (2018). Complications of Port Placement. In: Sotelo, R., Arriaga, J., Aron, M. (eds) Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62276-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62277-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation