Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Radical Nephrectomy

Hybrid transvaginal nephrectomy: development of our technique

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the development of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) transvaginal nephrectomy and present the initial experience.

METHODS

Thirty-eight female patients were submitted to hybrid NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy for tumor (n=23) and nonfunctioning renal unit (n=15) in 2 academic medical centers. Patients underwent surgery from July 2010 to June 2012 and none of them were candidates for partial nephrectomy (clinical stage T1b or higher). The procedure was performed by the use of multi-instrument ports or flexible cannulas inserted through umbilical and vaginal incisions. A 30° lens extra-long camera and combinations of conventional laparoscopic and prebent instruments were used. Specially designed extra-long, prebent straight instruments were found to be particularly useful for transvaginal manipulations. Prospective data regarding patient demographics, intraoperative and postoperative course of the patients, and pathology results were collected.

RESULTS

Average tumor diameter was 6 cm (range, 4.9-7.5 cm). Average operative time was 114.1 minutes (range, 90-190 minutes). Estimated blood loss ranged between 50 and 150 mL (average, 80 mL). Intraoperatively, 2 bladder perforations occurred and were treated by suturing. Postoperatively, 2 patients suffered from fever of unknown origin and 2 patients required transfusions due to bleeding. Average hospital stay was 3.3 days (range, 3-5 days). Positive surgical margins were not detected.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy is a feasible and safe alternative to standard laparoscopic nephrectomy in selected patients. Difficulties arising from limitations in current instrumentation have been addressed by the use of specially designed instruments. Further clinical studies are required to ascertain this approaches' place among nephrectomy techniques.

Umbilical laparoendoscopic urological surgery with a novel reusable device

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to present cumulative experience with umbilical laparoendoscopic urological surgery using a reusable device and to evaluate outcomes and complications in the first 100 patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients undergoing umbilical surgery with the KeyPort system and DuoRotate instruments (Richard Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany) were evaluated prospectively. Demographic, intraoperative and postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

Between October 2011 and July 2012, 79 pelvic (66 radical prostatectomy, 10 radical cystectomy, one diverticulectomy, one bilateral orchiectomy, one ureter reimplantation) and 21 renal (seven radical nephrectomy, six partial nephrectomy, five nephroureterectomy, two pyeloplasty, one pyelolithotomy) surgeries were performed through the umbilicus using this platform. Follow-up was 56.7 ± 12.6 weeks (mean ± SD). Mean age was 64.3 ± 10.3 years, body mass index 29 ± 4.6 kg/m(2), operative time 232 ± 106 min and estimated blood loss 260 ± 95 ml. Conversion to standard multiport laparoscopy was not necessary. An accessory port was used in 87 cases to facilitate suturing and conduct drainage extraction. Postoperative complications occurred in 24 cases (six Clavien grade I, 12 grade II, one grade IIIa, two grade IIIb, two grade IVa, one grade IVb). Mean hospital stay was 4.2 ± 4 days. Total transfusion rate was 10%. Mean visual analogue pain scale at day 2 was 2.1 ± 1.3 (0-10). Visual analogue wound satisfaction scale at month 1 was 9.2 ± 0.6 (0-10). No cancer-related events occurred during follow-up. Late complications (4%) were not related to the surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Umbilical KeyPort surgery is technically feasible for a great variety of procedures, both ablative and reconstructive. This access offers adequate surgical outcomes, scarce postoperative pain and security for the patient in the short term. Its reusable nature implies a noticeable economic advantage.

Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Despite the increasing interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) worldwide, the actual role of this novel approach in the field of minimally invasive urologic surgery remains to be determined. It has been postulated that robotic technology could be applied to LESS to overcome the current constraints.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future of robotic applications in single-site surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature review was performed in April 2011 using PubMed and the Thomson-Reuters Web of Science. In the free-text protocol, the following terms were applied: robotic single site surgery, robotic single port surgery, robotic single incision surgery, and robotic laparoendoscopic single site surgery. Review articles, editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor were included only if deemed to contain relevant information. In addition, cited references from the selected articles and from review articles retrieved in the search were assessed for significant manuscripts not previously included. The authors selected 55 articles according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The volume of available clinical outcomes of robotic LESS (R-LESS) has considerably grown since the pioneering description of the first successful clinical series of single-port robotic procedures. So far, a cumulative number of roughly 150 robotic urologic LESS cases have been reported by different institutions across the globe with a variety of techniques and port configurations. The feasibility of robot-assisted single-incision colorectal procedures, as well as of many gynecologic procedures, has also been demonstrated. A novel set of single-site instruments specifically dedicated to LESS is now commercially available for use with the da Vinci Si surgical system, and both experimental and clinical use have been reported. However, the current robotic systems were specifically designed for LESS. The ideal robotic platform should have a low external profile, the possibility of being deployed through a single access site, and the possibility of restoring intra-abdominal triangulation while maintaining the maximum degree of freedom for precise maneuvers and strength for reliable traction. Several purpose-built robotic prototypes for single-port surgery are being tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant advances have been achieved in the field of R-LESS since the first reported clinical series in 2009. Given the several advantages offered by current the da Vinci system, it is likely that its adoption in this field will increase. The recent introduction of purpose-built instrumentation is likely to further foster the application of robotics to LESS. However, we are still far from the ideal robotic platform. Significant improvements are needed before this technique might reach widespread adoption beyond selected centers. Further advances in the field of robotic technology are expected to provide the optimal interface to facilitate LESS.

Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML)

INTRODUCTION

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) are the next steps in the evolution of laparoscopic surgery, promising reduced morbidity and improved cosmetic result. The inconsistent terminology initially used led to confusion. Understanding the technical evolution, the current status and a unified and simplified terminology are key issues for further acceptance of both approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To present LESS and NOTES in its historical context and to clarify the associated terminology.

METHOD

Extensive literature search took place using the PubMed. Several hundred publications in general surgery and urology regarding LESS are present including the expert opinion of members the European Society of Uro-technology (ESUT).

RESULTS

The increasing interest on NOTES and LESS is reflected by a raising number of publications during the last 4 years. The initial confusion with the terminology of single-incision surgery represented a significant issue for further evolution of the technique. Thus, consortiums of experts searched a universally acceptable name for single-incision surgery. They determined that 'laparoendoscopic single-site surgery' (LESS) was both scientifically accurate and colloquially appropriate, the term being also ratified by the NOTES working group (Endourological Society) and the ESUT. For additional use of instruments, the terms hybrid NOTES and hybrid LESS should be used. Any single use of miniaturized instruments for laparoscopy should be called mini-laparoscopy.

DISCUSSION

The evolution of LESS and most likely NOTES to a new standard of minimally invasive surgery could represent an evolutionary step even greater than the one performed by the establishment of laparoscopy over open surgery.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and cancer

OBJECTIVES

To perform a survey of the current state of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and its implementation in the treatment of malignant disease of the urinary tract. Although it is a recent development in the field of laparoscopic surgery with still unproven long-term results, LESS may prove to be more commonly performed in the coming years while managing urologic cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted using the key words laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, LESS, urologic cancer. Relevant articles were reviewed for data on the management of urologic malignancy with LESS.

RESULTS

The first articles describing LESS for urologic cancers were published in 2007. Since then, published experience with this technique has increased. LESS has been implemented as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for the treatment of major urologic cancers. The proposed advantages of LESS are the aesthetic benefit of a single incision and a quicker and less painful recovery. Disadvantages are the lack of instrument triangulation, instrument clashing and the steeper learning curve. As this is a fairly recent technical innovation, long-term functional and oncological results for LESS have not yet been published.

CONCLUSIONS

LESS is a novel technical advance over conventional laparoscopic surgery, and it can be successfully used in the treatment of patients with urologic cancers. Published data support the feasibility and safety of LESS interventions for major urologic cancers, and newer data may assist in finding LESS's ultimate position among therapeutic options for patients with urologic malignancies.

Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: more than 1-year experience in radical nephrectomy and its learning curve study

PURPOSE

The aim is to report our 1-year experience in transumbilical Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN) and assess its learning curve.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From September 2009 to December 2010, 18 consecutive patients with a solitary renal tumor underwent transumbilical LESS-RN. We grouped measured parameters on the basis of the first nine (group A) and last nine (group B) patients, and compared both subgroups with the control group (C), which was composed of the initial nine consecutive patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic RNs performed by the same surgeon.

RESULTS

There was one LESS patient converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery for intraoperative hemorrhage and transfused. The mean for measured parameters of the groups A, B, C were: age: 58.6, 57.2, and 59.2 years, respectively (P>0.05); American Society of Aneshesiologists score: 1.9, 2.0, and 2.0, respectively (P>0.05); body mass index: 25.2, 23.5, and 23.1 kg/m(2), respectively (P>0.05); lesion size at CT scan: 5.0, 4.6, and 6.2 cm, respectively (P=0.039); operative skin to skin time: 191.6, 123.9, and 122.2 minutes, respectively (P=0.000); estimated blood loss: 172.2, 246.7, and 116.7 mL, respectively (P>0.05); incision length: 5.6, 5.9, and 7.4 cm, respectively (P=0.000); hospital stay: 5.8, 5.8, and 5.8 days, respectively (P>0.05). At the latest follow-up, all patients did not present any local recurrence or metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the transumbilical LESS-RN can be safely performed with favorable outcomes. While a learning curve certainly exists, it appears to be short for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Clinical outcomes of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery radical nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The conventional laparoscopic surgery is now paving way to the new technologies including robotic and laparoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). We present our updated experience on LESS radical nephrectomy (LESS-RN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data from patients undergoing LESS-RN in our two institutions were reviewed along with various clinical and pathological parameters.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2011, 42 LESS-RN were performed (right = 22, left = 20) with mean (range) age and BMI of 63.7 (33-86) years and 25.1 (18-38.6) kg/m(2), respectively. In addition to the instruments in the single port, one extra 3-mm needlescopic instrument was required in 19 patients (right = 17, left = 2). In three patients, two additional 5-mm trocars and instruments were required. None required open conversion. The recorded adverse events include one bowel injury (intraoperative closure without the need for stoma), one postoperative bleeding requiring blood transfusion, one prolonged ileus, and one deep venous thrombosis. The resected specimens revealed pT1a (n = 3), pT1b (n = 33), pT2a (n = 4), and pT3b (n = 2) tumors. The finding of pT3b was incidental rather than planned procedure. None of the patients had positive margins.

CONCLUSION

LESS-RN has proven to be feasible and safe. Beyond cosmesis, further advantages of this approach need to be addressed by randomized trials.