Redondo C, Esquinas C, Meilán E, García-Tello A, Arance I, Angulo JC. Comparative study of hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) partial nephrectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopy.
Actas Urol Esp 2017;
41:242-248. [PMID:
27825746 DOI:
10.1016/j.acuro.2016.10.001]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2016] [Revised: 10/02/2016] [Accepted: 10/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the surgical and oncological outcomes of hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) in partial nephrectomy with reusable components compared with multiport laparoscopy.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
Hybrid LESS technique with auxiliary 3.5mm trocar (n=20) was compared with conventional multiport laparoscopy (n=26) by a prospective, paired, nonrandomized, and comparative study in partially nephrectomized patients.
RESULTS
Follow-up average was 31±18.6 months. In one case, LESS was converted to laparoscopy. No differences were found regarding age, sex, body mass index, laterality, localization, tumor size or use of double J stent. Dominance of Loop-I (P=0.09) and benign histology (P=0.05) were observed in the LESS group. Neither there were differences regarding operating time, ischemia time, use of hemostatic materials, estimated blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, transfusion or other complications. In any case, to extend the skin incision for specimen extraction was not necessary. Drainage time (P=0.006) and hospital stay (P=0.003) were better in LESS patients. Concerning complications, no significant differences were observed according Clavien-Dindo scale. In laparoscopic group one patient died of pulmonary embolism after hospital discharge. No positive margins were observed in any case. During follow-up neither tumor recurrence nor disease progression were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding surgical outcomes, partial nephrectomy by LESS technique does not imply improvements, excepting shorter hospital stay, probably due to accurate surgical hemostasis and/or selection of cases. No surgical and oncological risks are involved, as well as no improvement in ischemia time, blood loss or transfusion rate. We find no significant difference in cosmetic outcomes.
Collapse