Indian Journal of Urology Users online:2397  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 100-104

Complications of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery in urology

Department of Urology, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA

Correspondence Address:
Brian H Irwin
Department of Urology, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.114028

Rights and Permissions

The objective was to give a general overview of common complications and rates reported in the current literature during performance of a variety of urologic procedures using laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery or LESS. A search of published reports using Pubmed and MEDLINE was performed with the following search terms: laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery, LESS or laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery complications within the date range of 2005--2011. Studies that were deemed appropriate and relevant to the current symposium were chosen for review. Overall complication rates were reported as ranging between 10% and 25%. In general, reconstructive procedures had consistently higher rates of complications than their extirpative/ablative counterparts (27% vs. 8%). There remain insufficient data to comment on differences in the rates or types of complications related to variations in the approach (transperitoneal vs. retroperitoneal), site of surgery (upper tract vs. lower tract) or specific technique used (instruments, access devices, robotic platforms, etc.). Complication rates associated with LESS in urology appear only slightly higher than with conventional laparoscopy. However, with proper patient selection and careful application of these techniques, proofs of concept and technical feasibility have been shown in several series. There continues to be a need for more standardization of the technique and reporting as well as more collaborative efforts to fully address questions of safety and efficacy of these new procedures.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded155    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal