Abstract
Background and Purpose:
As laparoscopy becomes more commonplace for urologists, ongoing attempts are under way to minimize the number and size of incisions used for access. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) was developed and has been increasingly attempted as an extension of classic laparoscopy. Investigators hypothesize that LESS may offer a superior cosmetic result, faster recovery, and equivalent efficacy to laparoscopic surgery. Our aim is to present our experience with renal LESS.
Patients and Methods:
A prospective data collection was performed on all patients who were undergoing renal LESS at our institution. A total of 11 renal LESS procedures were performed between July and November 2008: four LESS donor nephrectomies, two LESS radical nephrectomies, three LESS partial nephrectomies, and two LESS pyeloplasties. All LESS procedures replicated laparoscopic techniques but were performed through a single operative site using a 5-mm flexible-tip laparoscope and flexible working instruments.
Results:
Six of the patients were men. The mean operative time was 162.4 ± 38.5 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 104.5 ± 41.6 mL, with a mean length of hospitalization of 2.4 ± 0.8 days. There were no intraoperative complications or blood transfusions. Postoperative pain requirements were tabulated and revealed a mean in-hospital analgesic requirement of 44.8 ± 46.7 mg (range 7–158 mg) of morphine equivalents with three patients receiving intravenous ketorolac.
Conclusion:
Renal LESS is feasible as flexible laparoscopes and instruments continue to develop. In our initial experience, expert laparoscopic surgeons were able to perform these LESS procedures with equivalent efficacy without compromising perioperative measures, including operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay. Further prospective investigation through randomized studies is necessary to elucidate differences, if any, in postoperative analgesic requirements and patient satisfaction with postoperative cosmesis, and to confirm equivalent efficacy when compared with current standards.