Laparoendoscopic single-site Pfannenstiel versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

First Canadian experience with robotic laparoendoscopic single-site vs. standard laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: A prospective comparative study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site living donor nephrectomy (R-LESS LDN) vs. standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

METHODS

Between October 2013 and November 2015, 39 patients were allocated to either standard LLDN (n=25) or R-LESS LDN (n=14). Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, analgesic requirement, visual analogue scale of pain at postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 30, and a health-related quality of life and body image questionnaire were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics and intraoperative outcomes between the two cohorts. The R-LESS LDN cohort had lower analgesic requirement (p=0.002) and lower visual pain scores on days 1 and 3 (p=0.001). Additionally, body image and satisfaction scores in the R-LESS group were also superior compared to the LLDN cohort (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Recipient graft functional outcomes were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first evidence that R-LESS LDN is safe and associated with comparable surgical and early functional outcomes compared to LLDN, while pain, donor body image, and satisfaction scores were improved compared to LLDN.

Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Incision Radical Nephrectomy Without Special Platforms: A Single-Center Initial Experience

OBJECTIVES

To describe the initial experience of retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-incision radical nephrectomy (LESI-RN) without special platforms and use of conventional laparoscopic instruments and assess the safety and feasibility of LESI-RN.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Twenty patients who underwent LESI-RN were enrolled in this study. A 5-cm arc skin incision was performed at the midpoint between the costal arch and iliac crest on the midaxillary line. Trocars of 10, 5, and 11 mm were placed at the middle, left end, and right end of the arc incision, respectively. Demographic parameters and perioperative data were retrospectively analyzed and compared with the patients who underwent conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN).

RESULTS

The LESI-RN patients had a significantly lower visual analogue scale (4.4 ± 1.9 versus 5.6 ± 1.4; P = .031) and analgesic requirement (18.5 ± 11.2 versus 28.6 ± 16.1; P = .026) compared with the conventional LRN group. The operation time in the LESI-RN group was longer than that in the conventional LRN group (P = .001). The two procedures were essentially similar in terms of the time to liquid intake and hospital stay after operation (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

LESI-RN is a safe and feasible surgical strategy, which combines the common principles of using straight instruments and working triangulation in conventional LRN with advantages of cosmesis and minimal invasiveness in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. The surgical and oncological efficacy of LESI-RN is similar to that of conventional LRN but with significantly improved control of postoperative pain and cosmetic results.

LESS living donor nephrectomy: Surgical technique and results

Purpose:

We present the findings of 50 patients undergoing pure trans-umbilical laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) living donor nephrectomy (LDN), between February 2010 and May 2014.

Materials and Methods:

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery LDN was performed through an umbilical incision. Different trocars were used, namely Gelpoint (Applied Mιdical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) SILS port (Covidien, Hamilton, Bermuda), R-port (Olympus Surgical, Orangeburg, NY) and standard trocars, inserted through the same skin incision but using separate fascial punctures. The standard laparoscopic technique was employed. The kidney was pre-entrapped in a retrieval bag and extracted trans-umbilically. Data were collected prospectively including questionnaires containing patient reported oral pain medication duration and time to recovery.

Results:

LESS LDN was successful in all patients. Mean warm ischemia time was 6.2 min (3–15), mean procedure time was 233.2 min (172–300), and hospitalization stay was 3.94 days (3–7) with a visual analogue pain score at discharge of 1.32 (0–3). No intraoperative complications occurred. The mean time of oral pain medication was 8.72 days (1–20) and final scar length was 4.06 cm (3–5). Each allograft was functional.

Conclusion:

Although challenging, trans-umbilical LESS LDN seems to be feasible and safe. Hence, LESS has the potential to improve cosmetic results and decrease morbidity.

Successful introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy after experience with laparoscopic single-site plus-one trocar donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) procedure after experience with the LESS-plus-one-trocar donor nephrectomy (LEPODN) procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2009 to 2014, 126 left laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs) were performed, including 59 Standard (Std)-LDN, 30 LEPODN, and 37 LESSDN. In the LEPODN procedure, a 5-mm trocar was added as a right-hand working trocar to the LESSDN procedure. A GelPOINT(®) platform was applied on a pararectal single incision in both LEPODN and LESSDN procedures. After performing the LEPODN procedure several times, each surgeon performed the LESSDN procedure.

RESULTS

Std-LDN, LEPODN, and LESSDN procedures were performed by 10, 10, and 7 surgeons, respectively. The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, time to ambulation, and length of postoperative hospital stay were the shortest for the LESSDN procedure (P<0.012, P=0.007, P<0.001, P=0.027, and P=0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the complication rate, delayed graft function rate, and mean 7-day post-transplant serum creatinine levels was observed among the three procedures. Individual results of the operative time and estimated blood loss for the LESSDN procedure were not significantly inferior to those of Std-LDN and LEPODN procedures for each surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

The LESSDN procedure can be introduced safely and effectively without compromising the operative time, complication rate, and graft function after experience with the LEPODN procedure among multiple surgeons. The LEPODN procedure may be an effective bridge from standard multiport LDN to LESSDN.

Effect of gentamicin-containing collagen sponges on surgical site infection after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) can be considered a frequent complication of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Since 2007, our center used routinely a gentamicin-containing collagen sponge (GCCS) when closing the wound. The effect of GCCS on SSI is not elucidated clearly. In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the effects of GCCS on SSI after HALDN.

METHODS

Between December 2004 and November 2007, we treated 100 patients without GCCS, and from November 2007 to July 2010, there were 100 patients with GCCS placed after HALDN. A SSI was defined as an incisional infection that required an intervention such as opening of the site or antibiotic treatment within 90 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Implantation of a GCCS resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the SSI rate, from 6% to 0 (p=0.01). All infections occurred in the Pfannenstiel incision site. There was no significant difference between the groups in the creatinine concentration after three months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of gentamicin-containing collagen sponges reduces the risk of SSI significantly after HALDN without compromising kidney function.

Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: outcomes of an international multi-institutional study of 140 patients

OBJECTIVE

To report an international, multi-institutional series of laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty (LESS-P) with analysis of functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LESS-P cases performed between October 2007 and June 2012 at 7 institutions worldwide per individual institutional protocols, entry criteria, and techniques were included. Patient characteristics, operative indications, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative follow-up were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 140 adult patients (age 39.9 ± 15.7 years; body mass index 24.8 ± 4.2 kg/m(2); 15% with previous abdominal surgery) who underwent unilateral LESS-P, most of whom (94.3%) had dismembered reconstructions. Mean operative time was 202.1 ± 47 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 61.2 ± 44.6 mL. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery was applied in 31 patients (22.1%). A single 2-3 mm accessory port was used in 44 patients (31.4%) and a single 5-12 mm accessory port was added in 9 patients (6.4%), whereas 10 patients (7.1%) were converted to conventional multiport laparoscopy. No patients required conversion to open surgery, nor were any intraoperative complications reported. Length of hospitalization was 2.4 ± 1.6 days. The overall 90-day postoperative complication rate was 18.6%, mostly low-grade complications (Clavien I-II). With a mean follow-up of 14.0 ± 10.8 months, 93.4% had resolution of symptoms and 94.4% had radiographic evidence demonstrating resolution of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Assessment of drainage with diuretic nuclear renal scan provided evidence of improvement in 86.5% of patients on their first postoperative renal scan.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the most comprehensive experience with LESS-P reported to date. Outcome measures parallel those of large published series of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Despite these encouraging findings, longer follow-up is needed to determine the efficacy and durability of this approach for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in kidney surgery: clinical experience and future perspectives

Laparoscopic surgery of the upper urinary tract has reduced the morbidity related to large abdominal incisions and has resulted in significant advantages over open surgery. Nevertheless, the pursuit for even more minimally invasive alternatives to laparoscopy has led to the concept of scarless surgery and the approach of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). LESS is currently a feasible approach for the majority of kidney surgical procedures, and there is intense debate regarding its efficiency and advantages. In the present review of the literature, the current status of upper urinary LESS and its advantages and disadvantages, as well the technological and technical evolution, are presented.

Safe initiation of a laparoendoscopic single site living donor nephrectomy program in a small-volume transplant center

OBJECTIVE

To describe keys to successful programmatic implementation of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS)-living donor nephrectomy (LDN) in a small-volume center. Laparoscopic LDN has become the standard of care. Technically challenging LESS-LDN has been limited to high-volume centers. However, approximately half of all U.S. transplant centers perform ≤15 LDNs/year, including our center.

METHODS

A hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) device was used as the LESS platform at a periumbilical midline incision. We used an adhesive drape to cover the platform to prevent gas leakage. A 30° telescope and 3-4 instruments were inserted through its gel-cap. After careful dissection, the kidney was bagged into a recovery device with an external handle before its vessels were ligated with staples and was then removed immediately through the LESS wound.

RESULTS

LESS-LDN was successful in all of 10 living donors without any multisite laparoscopic or open conversion and without any instruments inserted through extra wounds. No patient had perioperative complications or received transfusions. Median operative time was 271 minutes with a warm ischemia time (WIT) of 3.5 minutes. Hospital stay averaged 2 days with visual analog pain score 4 of 10 at discharge and 2 of 10 at 2 weeks. All recipients recuperated well with immediate graft function.

CONCLUSION

Our LESS-LDN technique offers improved cosmesis, favorable perioperative outcomes, and versatile options for conversion, if necessary, making it a viable approach for small-volume centers.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery with the second-generation single port instrument delivery extended reach surgical system in a porcine model

Purpose

To describe our initial experience with the second-generation Single Port Instrument Delivery Extended Reach (SPIDER) laparoendoscopic single-site surgical system in a porcine model.

Materials and Methods

In four swine weighing approximately 32 to 35 kg, five nephrectomies, four adrenalectomies, three pyeloplasties, and three partial cystectomies and closures were performed by a single surgeon. The swine were placed in the lateral flank position under general anesthesia. The SPIDER surgical system was introduced through a single incision and the various urological procures were performed by use of flexible instrumentation.

Results

All five nephrectomies, four adrenalectomies, three pyeloplasties, and three partial cystectomies and closures were performed successfully without additional skin incisions. The mean time to set up the SPIDER platform was 3.5 minutes. The mean operative time for the right and left nephrectomies was 45.4 minutes and 47.8 minutes, respectively. The mean operative time for the right and left adrenalectomies was 37.6 minutes and 35.4 minutes, respectively. The mean operative time for the pyeloplasties for one right and two left ureters was 45.6 minutes and 47.3 minutes, respectively. The mean operative time for the partial cystectomies and closures was 18.6 minutes. There were no noticeable intraoperative complications except for minimal urine leakage in the first pyeloplasty.

Conclusions

In this initial pilot evaluation, the second-generation SPIDER surgical system offered intuitive instrument maneuverability and restored triangulation. However, retraction was challenging because of the lack of strength and the limited ability for precise manipulation of the tip. Future refinements of the technology and prospective studies are needed to optimize the application of this technology in urology.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for treatment of benign adnexal disease: single-center experience over 3-years

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe the effects of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery performed over 3 consecutive years to treat adnexal disease and to report patient perioperative outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective clinical study (Canadian Task Force classification III).

SETTING

Tertiary care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing LESS because of a benign gynecologic indication, from January 2009 through December 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Women with benign adnexal disease ≤10 cm underwent LESS surgery through a single 1.5- to 2.0-cm umbilical incision. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were carefully recorded, including the need for postoperative rescue analgesia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled. Median patient age was 49 years, and median body mass index was 23. Surgical procedures included unilateral or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and unilateral or bilateral cyst enucleation. Median operative time was 48 minutes. Pain control was optimal, with an average visual analog score of 4/10. Both patients and surgeons were highly satisfied with the cosmetic result, and the cosmetic visual analog score was 9/10 at discharge and at 30 days after surgery. The number of women who underwent unilateral or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy increased progressively and significantly yearly over the study period (16 vs 23 vs 40; p = .001). Median operative time for unilateral or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy increased significantly from 2009 to 2010 and 2011 (34 vs 45 and 44 minutes; p = .001), together with median BMI (23 vs 23 vs 25; p = .04).

CONCLUSION

LESS is a desirable surgical approach in patients with simple adnexal disease.

Another option for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single center experience comparing two-port versus hand-assisted technique

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of two-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (TPLDN) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2010 and March 2012, 100 kidney donors scheduled for left nephrectomy were alternatively assigned to HALDN or TPLDN in a 1:1 fashion. All procedures were performed by the same laparoscopic surgeon. Demographic data and intraoperative and early postoperative data were collected prospectively and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the operating time (133±12 vs 142±17 min, P=0.07), blood loss (55±46 vs 58±52 mL, P=0.84), complication rate (10% vs 12%, P=0.74), and length of hospital stay (3.8±0.8 vs 4.1±2.8 days, P=0.5) between the HALDN and TPLDN groups. The warm ischemia time was longer in the TPLDN group (2.2±0.7 vs 3.5±0.9 min, P<0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in the analgesic requirement and the visual analog pain scores. There was a trend toward quicker return to 100% recovery in the TPLDN group (60±46 vs 39±15 days, P=0.05). The TPLDN group had a significantly smaller surgical incision (8.2±0.6 vs 5.5±0.4 cm, P<0.001) and higher scar satisfaction score (7.8±1.5 vs 8.6±1.3, P=0.02) than the HALDN group. No differences were found in the recipient serum creatinine values or in the incidence of delayed graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing TPLDN and HALDN, there was no significant difference in a majority of the operative and postoperative parameters. TPLDN might be associated with smaller surgical incision, improved cosmetic satisfaction, and equivalent recipient graft function.

Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy for large renal masses

PURPOSE

To report our operative experience and short-term outcomes for the laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) management of large renal tumors and tumors of advanced stage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent LESS-radical nephrectomy (RN) for large (≥ 7 cm) and/or locally advanced tumors (>T(2)). Intraoperative, postoperative, and short-term follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median surgical time was 146 minutes (range 73-164 min), and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range 25-400 mL). No procedure needed conversion to open RN or hand-assisted laparoscopic RN. The median hospital stay was 47 hours (range 42 hours-12 days). One (10%) patient had a minor complication (postoperative fever treated with antibiotics) and one (10%) patient had a major complication (small bowel obstruction necessitating reoperation). Of the 10 tumors, 2 were pathologic stage T(1b), 4 were pathologic stage T(2), and 4 were stage T(3a). At a median follow-up of 12.3 months (range 1-16 mos), six (60%) patients were alive without evidence of recurrence, and 4 (40%) patients were alive with disease. Of those four patients, all four had known metastatic disease before surgery.

CONCLUSION

LESS-RN for large or advanced stage renal masses is a technically challenging operation. In experienced hands, however, it is a safe and feasible therapeutic option for the management of these tumors.

Current status of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urologic surgery

Since the introduction of laparoscopic surgery, the promise of lower postoperative morbidity and improved cosmesis has been achieved. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) potentially takes this further. Following the first human urological LESS report in 2007, numerous case series have emerged, as well as comparative studies comparing LESS with standard laparoscopy. However, comparative series between conventional laparoscopy and LESS for different procedures suggest a non-inferiority of LESS over standard laparoscopy, but the only objective benefit remains an improved cosmetic outcome. Challenging ergonomics, instrument clashing, lack of true triangulation, and in-line vision are the main concerns with LESS surgery. Various new instruments have been designed, but only experienced laparoscopists and well-selected patients are pivotal for a successful LESS procedure. Robotic-assisted LESS procedures have been performed. The available robotic platform remains bulky, but development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.

Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

CONTEXT

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has increasingly been used to perform radical, partial, simple, or donor nephrectomy to reduce the morbidity and scarring associated with surgical intervention. Studies comparing LESS nephrectomy (LESS-N) and conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy (CL-N) have reported conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of LESS-N compared with CL-N.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Two RCTs and 25 retrospective studies including a total of 1094 cases were identified. Although LESS-N was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 9.87 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.37-16.38; p=0.003) and a higher conversion rate (6% compared with 0.3%; odds ratio: 4.83; 95% CI, 1.87-12.45; p=0.001), patients in this group might benefit from less postoperative pain (WMD: -0.48; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.02; p=0.04), lower analgesic requirement (WMD: -4.78 mg; 95% CI, -8.59 to -0.97; p=0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.32 d; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.09; p=0.007), shorter recovery time (WMD: -5.08 d; 95% CI, -8.49 to -1.68; p=0.003), and better cosmetic outcome (WMD: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.67-1.48; p<0.00001). Perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, and postoperative serum creatinine levels of graft recipients did not differ significantly between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

LESS-N offers a safe and efficient alternative to CL-N with less pain, shorter recovery time, and better cosmetic outcome. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, future well-designed RCTs are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Is LESS really more?

In the last decade, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has been touted to be the part of the 'evolution' of minimally invasive surgery. The hope is that reduced access points will ultimately decrease pain, morbidity, convalescence, and improve cosmesis. However, what is unique about LESS is that while laparoscopic literature sought to demonstrate superiority of the technique over that of open surgery, the publications on LESS generally seem to seek to demonstrate equivalence with laparoscopy, with the major focus being on cosmesis. Unfortunately, even in that regard the objective cosmesis data is lacking. Furthermore, patients rate cosmesis the least important of all factors. LESS has also been associated with increased risk of complication, increased surgical cost, and longer operative times. In the current review, an objective assessment of the literature will be used for comparison between current standard laparoscopic techniques and LESS with the hopes of answering the question: is LESS really more?

Upper tract urologic LaparoEndoscopic Single-Site surgery

LaparoEndoscopic Single-Site (LESS) surgery has been developed as an extension of conventional laparoscopy to provide a minimally invasive option with fewer incisions, minimizing scars and potentially improving postoperative convalescence. These techniques have been adopted in the practice of urologic surgery, and largely employed to date for upper tract surgery by urologists in specialized centers with advanced laparoscopic practices. Herein, we review the current experience with upper tract urologic LESS surgery.

Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: Without the use of a single port access device

Introduction:

Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is a procedure in evolution. Currently described techniques utilize single port access devices and articulating, flexible, and bent working instruments. We describe a modified technique of transumbilical LESS-DN with conventional laparoscopic instruments in five kidney donors.

Materials and Methods:

Three standard laparoscopic ports (10 mm × 1, 5 mm × 2) were placed through a 4.5 cm vertical transumbilical incision. A 10 mm 45°, long bariatric lens (Karl Storz) was used. Renal mobilization was performed using conventional rigid laparoscopy instruments. A port closure needle loaded with a blunt plastic needle cap was used for traction. After hilar clamping, an incision was made connecting the three ports, and the kidney was extracted using a preplaced suture over the lower pole fat. All data were prospectively recorded.

Results:

LESS-DN was performed successfully in all five patients. The mean operative time was 157.2 minutes (range, 134–184) and the mean warm ischemia time was 3.2 minutes (range, 3–4). All donors were discharged on postoperative day 3 and were able to resume normal physical activity by 2 weeks after the procedure. All donors had an excellent cosmetic outcome. The mean serum creatinine (recipient) at discharge was 1.14 mg% (range, 0.9–1.4).

Conclusions:

Transumbilical LESS-DN can be cost-effectively performed using conventional laparoscopy instruments and without the need for a single port access device. Warm ischemia times with this technique are comparable with that during conventional multiport laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: single institution report of initial 100 cases

PURPOSE

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery is a recent advance in minimally invasive urology. We report outcomes from our initial 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies done by a single surgeon and provide a matched comparison of conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2009 to 2010 at a tertiary referral center 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon through a periumbilical incision using the GelPoint® system. No extraumbilical incisions or punctures were made. A retrospective review was performed using a prospectively managed database of standard perioperative and convalescent parameters. Comparison was made using a matched cohort of conventional live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was longer in the laparoendoscopic single site group (156 vs 130 minutes) but there was no difference in estimated blood loss or warm ischemia time. There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay and visual analog pain scores were similar in the groups but the laparoendoscopic group showed improved convalescence with faster return to work, normal activity and 100% recovery. Recipient graft function was equivalent in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective, matched comparison laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy was associated with longer operative time but equivalent recipient graft function and improved convalescence. The benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery over conventional laparoscopy may be limited. However, with respect to live donor nephrectomy the benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery may nevertheless prove beneficial to decrease barriers to live organ donation.

[Pioneer experience in Spain with LSSS nephrectomy in living donor]

INTRODUCTION

LESS surgery (Laparoendoscopic single site surgery) is a surgical technique that aims to perform intraabdominal surgery using a single site entry, allowing for reduction in the number and size of the incisions, achieving better esthetic results with at least the same functional outcomes as with the conventional laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present the first experience of LESS living donor nephrectomy carried out by a totally European team. To perform it, a Quadport® device was placed through a 4 cm long paraumbilical incision.

RESULTS

The nephrectomy was performed using the standards of conventional laparoscopic surgery, with the use of a precurved instrument in the left hand and straight instruments in the right. After bagging the kidney, the artery and vein were sectioned after clipping, allowing for rapid extraction of the organ through the same incision, with warm ischemia of 3.30" and 2.47," respectively.

CONCLUSION

Living donor nephrectomy using the LESS technique is feasible and can be considered a good option for obtaining live donor kidney grafts in males. The application of said surgical in living kidney donor can increase the rate of donation, by reducing morbidity and improving the esthetic results with the same outcome for the donor as for the recipient.

Retroperitoneal LESS donor nephrectomy

Donor nephrectomy with laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) surgery has been reported via the transperitoneal approach. We describe a novel technique of retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy using a single surgical incision in the groin, below the abdominal skin crease or "bikini line". The LESS groin incision offers superior cosmesis, while the retroperitoneal approach has distinct advantages, such as the ability to identify the renal vessels early. The new procedure has been performed in two obese patients (body mass index 32 and 33 kg/m2, respectively). The operative times were 4 and 5 hours, warm ischemic times 135 and 315 seconds, blood loss 100 and 250 mL, and hospitalization 3 and 2 days, respectively. Retroperitoneal LESS donor nephrectomy through a single, inconspicuous groin incision is feasible and safe. Further evaluation of the technique in a larger patient cohort is indicated.

Urologic Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS): current status

BACKGROUND

The evolution of minimally invasive surgery led to the development of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS).

DISCUSSION

The feasibility of almost all types of urologic procedures has been shown. Comparative series between conventional laparoscopy and LESS for different kidney procedures suggest a non-inferiority of LESS over standard laparoscopy but the only objective benefit remains an improved cosmetic outcome. Challenging ergonomics, instruments clashing, lacks of true triangulation, in-line vision are the main concerns of LESS surgery. LESS pre-bent and articulating instruments have been designed but only experienced laparoscopists and well-selected patients are pivotal for a successful LESS procedure. Da Vinci® assisted LESS procedures have been performed. The available robotic platform remains bulky, but innovative instruments and platforms may facilitate the future unrestricted development of LESS.

CONCLUSIONS

A steep learning curve limits the application of LESS procedures to well trained and experienced surgeons. Nevertheless, the adoption of LESS principles and the clinical experience with LESS techniques have significantly grown in the past few years worldwide. Improvements in the instruments and platforms will expand the application of LESS surgery, allowing us to better assess its advantages and disadvantages compared to other minimally invasive procedures.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery - current status and controversies

Scarless surgery is the Holy Grail of surgery and the very raison d’etre of Minimal Access Surgery was the reduction of scars and thereby pain and suffering of the patients. The work of Muhe and Mouret in the late 80s, paved the way for mainstream laparoscopic procedures and it rapidly became the method of choice for many intra-abdominal procedures. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a very exciting new modality in the field of minimal access surgery which works for further reducing the scars of standard laparoscopy and towards scarless surgery. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was developed for scarless surgery, but did not gain popularity due to a variety of reasons. NOTES stands for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery, a term coined by a consortium in 2005. NOTES remains a research technique with only a few clinical cases having been reported. The lack of success of NOTES seems to have spurred on the interest in single-incision laparoscopy as an eminently doable technique in the present with minimum visible scarring, rendering a ‘scarless’ effect. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is, a term coined by a multidisciplinary consortium in 2008 for single-incision laparoscopic surgery. These are complementary technologies with similar difficulties of access, lack of triangulation and inadequate instrumentation as of date. LESS seems to offer an advantage to surgeons with its familiar field of view and instruments similar to those used in conventional laparoscopy. LESS remains a evolving special technique used successfully in many a centre, but with a significant way to go before it becomes mainstream. It currently stands between standard laparoscopy and NOTES in the armamentarium of minimal access surgery. This article outlines the development of LESS giving an overview of all the techniques and devices available and likely to be available in the future.

The alternative to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: small strategic laparoscopic incision placement (SLIP) nephrectomy improves cosmesis without technical restrictions

BACKGROUND

The latest attempt to improve the cosmesis of laparoscopic surgery is laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). We present our initial experience with an alternative procedure with similar cosmetic benefit but without technical limitations.

METHODS

Small strategic laparoscopic incision placement (SLIP) nephrectomy is performed transperitoneally, generally using three 5-mm ports (one in the umbilicus) and one 12-mm port placed below the pubic hairline, such that only two 5-mm scars are visible without close inspection. We assessed our first 21 procedures, which included all but five of the standard transperitoneal nephrectomies by a single surgeon from June 2008 through July 2009. These were matched 1:2 (exactly by gender and American Society of Anesthesiology score, and then closest in age and body mass index) from 96 patients undergoing similar standard transperitoneal laparoscopic procedures from 2005 through 2008.

RESULTS

The SLIP and control groups were well matched, with mean age and body mass index differing by only 3.6 years and 1.1, respectively. Of the SLIP patients, 34% were obese or morbidly obese, and a trainee was the primary surgeon in 81% of cases. Mean operative time was 23 minutes longer in the SLIP cases. There was no difference between groups in estimated blood loss, complication rate, or convalescence.

CONCLUSIONS

Like LESS, SLIP nephrectomy provides improved cosmesis. Unlike LESS, it is only slightly more difficult to perform than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy and can be performed in technically challenging cases (obesity, large specimen, etc). Similar to the literature on LESS, there is no convalescence benefit to SLIP nephrectomy; the advantage over standard laparoscopy is purely cosmetic.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: future perspectives

Hundreds of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) cases have been reported in the literature across a broad span of urological procedures. Despite this, many hurdles to widespread adoption of these techniques exist, including technical challenges, such as decreased triangulation and unfamiliar viewing angles, and more philosophical issues, such as the necessity of demonstrating benefits of these techniques over conventional laparoscopy. Future research will seek to overcome these obstacles. This may be accomplished with further instrument development, including robotic instrumentation, as well as clinical studies evaluating outcomes of LESS/NOTES operations that may demonstrate advantages in these techniques.

Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature

CONTEXT

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) have been developed to benefit patients by enabling surgeons to perform scarless surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future perspectives of LESS and NOTES in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in June 2010 using the Medline database to identify all publications relating to NOTES and LESS in urology.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

In urology, NOTES has been completed experimentally via transgastric, transvaginal, transcolonic, and transvesical routes. Initial clinical experience has shown that NOTES urologic surgery using currently available instruments is indeed possible. Nevertheless, because of the immaturity of the instrumentation, early cases have demanded high technical virtuosity. LESS can safely and effectively be performed in a variety of urologic settings. As clinical experience increases, expanding indications are expected to be documented and the efficacy of the procedure to improve. So far, the quality of evidence of all available studies remains low, mostly being small case series or case-control studies from selected centers. Thus, the only objective benefit of LESS remains the improved cosmetic outcome. Prospective, randomized studies are largely awaited to determine which LESS procedures will be established and which are unlikely to stand the test of time. Technology advances hold promise to minimize the challenging technical nature of scarless surgery. In this respect, robotics is likely to drive a major paradigm shift in the development of LESS and NOTES.

CONCLUSIONS

NOTES is still an investigational approach in urology. LESS has proven to be immediately applicable in the clinical field, being safe and feasible in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.