Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Pyeloplasty Using Additional 2 mm Instruments: A Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: Despite a recent surge in the performance of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), concerns remain about performing LESS pyeloplasty (LESS-P) because of the technical difficulty in suturing. We report our techniques and initial experiences with LESS-P using additional needlescopic instruments and compare the results with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CL-P).
Materials and Methods: Nine patients undergoing LESS-P were matched 2:1 with regard to age and side of surgery to a previous cohort of 18 patients who underwent CL-P. In both groups, the operating procedures were performed equally except for the number of access points. In the LESS-P group, we made a single 2 cm incision at the umbilicus and used a homemade port. We also used additional 2 mm needlescopic instruments at the subcostal area to facilitate suturing and the ureteral stenting.
Results: The preoperative characteristics were comparable in both groups. Postoperatively, no significant differences were noted between the LESS-P and CL-P cases in regard to length of stay, estimated blood loss, analgesics required, and complications. But, LESS-P was associated with a shorter operative time (252.2 vs. 309.7 minutes, p=0.044) and less pain on postoperative day one (numeric rating scale 3.7 vs. 5.6, p=0.024). The success rate was 94% with CL-P (median, 23 months) and 100% with LESS-P (median, 14 months).
Conclusions: Our initial experiences suggest that LESS-P is a feasible and safe procedure. The use of additional 2 mm instruments can help to overcome the difficulties associated with LESS surgery.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김태헌, "Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Ureterolithotomy for Large Impacted Ureteral Stones: Initial Experiences" 대한비뇨기과학회 51 (51): 403-408, 2010

2 White WM, "Single-port laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery: initial operative experience and comparative outcomes" 73 : 1279-1282, 2009

3 Raman JD, "Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence" 55 : 1198-1204, 2009

4 Chamie K, "Short stay pyeloplasty: variables affecting pain and length of stay" 179 : 1549-1552, 2008

5 Desai MM, "Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report" 101 : 83-88, 2008

6 Schuessler WW, "Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty" 150 : 1795-1799, 1993

7 Tracy CR, "Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty" 74 : 1029-1034, 2009

8 Winfield HN, "Management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction--is it time for a new gold standard" 176 : 866-867, 2006

9 Moon DA, "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard" 67 : 932-936, 2006

10 Raybourn JH 3rd, "Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for nephrectomy as a feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopy" 75 : 100-103, 2010

11 Stein RJ, "Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: a comparison with the standard laparoscopic technique" 107 : 811-815, 2011

12 Canes D, "Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison" 57 : 95-101, 2010

13 Rassweiler JJ, "Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty" 26 : 539-547, 2008

14 Calvert RC, "Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction" 22 : 411-414, 2008

15 Dindo D, "Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey" 240 : 205-213, 2004