Objectives: We compared perioperative results and complications of reconstructive surgery of the urinary tract performed using a multichannel platform through the umbilicus and one additional 3.5-mm with a cohort of patients simultaneously treated with conventional 4-port laparoscopy. Materials and Methods: Matched-pair study comparing perioperative outcomes, postoperative visual analogue pain scale (VAPS) and morbidity of 2-port (n = 20) and 4-port (n = 10) laparoscopic reconstructive urological surgery. Preoperative and perioperative data compared included demographics, type of surgery, operative time, blood loss, decrease in serum hemoglobin, operative complications, length of stay and postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: There was no significant difference between groups regarding age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of surgery, operative time, operative complications and intraoperative or postoperative transfusion. Estimated blood loss was lower using reduced-port approach. VAPS at postoperative day one was significantly lower for 2-port approach and so was the length of stay. Patient satisfaction with the wound was higher for 2-port surgery. Differences were not observed in number and severity of postoperative complications. Conclusions: Urological reconstructive operations can be safely performed using the hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site umbilical approach, resulting in lower blood loss, higher patient satisfaction and lower postoperative pain, which also facilitate earlier hospital discharge, than the same reconstructive procedures performed through multiport conventional laparoscopy.

Keywords:
Minilaparoscopy, Reconstructive surgery, Hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site, Single-site
1.
Rassweiler J, Pini G, Gözen AS, Klein J, Teber D: Role of laparoscopy in reconstructive surgery. Curr Opin Urol 2010;20:471-482.
2.
Kaouk JH, Gill IS: Laparoscopic reconstructive urology. J Urol 2003;170(4 pt 1):1070-1078.
3.
Canes D, Desai MM, Aron M, Haber GP, Goel RK, Stein RJ, et al: Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol 2008;54:1020-1029.
4.
Gettman MT, White WM, Aron M, Autorino R, Averch T, Box G, et al: Where do we really stand with LESS and NOTES? Eur Urol 2011;59:231-234.
5.
White WM, Haber GP, Goel RK, Crouzet S, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH: Single-port urological surgery: single-center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology 2009;74:801-804.
6.
Irwin BH, Rao PP, Stein RJ, Desai MM: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in urology. Urol Clin North Am 2009;36:223-235.
7.
Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Han DH, Lee SW, Yinghao S, et al: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol 2011;60:998-1005.
8.
Breda A, Villamizar JM, Faba OR, Caliolo C, de Gracia A, Gausa L, et al: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the use of 3-mm instruments and laparoscope: initial experience at a tertiary center. Eur Urol 2012;61:840-844.
9.
Samarasekera D, Kaouk JH: Robotic single port surgery: current status and future considerations. Indian J Urol 2014;30:326-332.
10.
Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Richstone L: Upper tract urologic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Indian J Urol 2012;28:60-64.
11.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
12.
Autorino R, Stein RJ, Lima E, Damiano R, Khanna R, Haber GP, et al: Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol 2010;17:410-431.
13.
Pemberton RJ, Tolley DA, van Velthoven RF: Prevention and management of complications in urological laparoscopic port site placement. Eur Urol 2006;50:958-968.
14.
Gettman MT, Box G, Averch T, Cadeddu JA, Cherullo E, Clayman RV, et al: Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: heralding a new era in urology? Eur Urol 2008;53:1117-1120.
15.
Box G, Averch T, Cadeddu J, Cherullo E, Clayman R, Desai M, et al: Nomenclature of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures in urology. J Endourol 2008;22:2575-2581.
16.
Liatsikos E, Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P, Do M, Dietel A, Stolzenburg JU: Pure single-port laparoscopic surgery or mix of techniques? World J Urol 2012;30:581-587.
17.
Georgiou AN, Rassweiler J, Herrmann TR, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Do EM, et al: Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). World J Urol 2012;30:573-580.
18.
Cáceres F, Cabrera PM, García-Tello A, García-Mediero JM, Angulo JC: Safety study of umbilical single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a new DuoRotate system. Eur Urol 2012;62:1143-1149.
19.
Cabrera PM, Cáceres F, García-Tello A, Angulo JC: Initial experience of umbilical laparoendoscopic single-site nephron-sparing surgery with KeyPort and DuoRotate system. J Endourol 2013;27:566-572.
20.
García-Tello A, Cabrera PM, Cáceres F, Ramón de Fata F, Mateo E, Angulo JC: Umbilical laparoendoscopic urological surgery with a novel reusable device. Scand J Urol 2014;48:301-308.
21.
Gimbernat H, Redondo C, García-Tello A, Mateo E, García-Mediero JM, Angulo JC: Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site ureteral reimplantation. Actas Urol Esp 2015;39:195-200.
22.
Redondo C, Pérez S, Gimbernat H, Meilán E, García-Tello A, Angulo JC: Umbilical laparoendoscopic partial cystectomy. Actas Urol Esp 2015;39:451-455.
23.
Angulo JC, Cáceres F, Cabrera PM, García-Tello A, Arance I, Romero I: Two-port laparoscopic radical cystectomy with reusable umbilical system: a feasibility study. Urology 2014;84:1088-1093.
24.
Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, Brandina R, Goldfarb DA, Shoskes D, et al: Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 2010;57:95-101.
25.
Inoue S, Ikeda K, Kobayashi K, Kajiwara M, Teishima J, Matsubara A: Patient-reported satisfaction and cosmesis outcomes following laparoscopic adrenalectomy: laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E20-E25.
26.
Lee JY, Kang DH, Chung JH, Jo JK, Lee SW: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for benign urologic disease with a homemade single port device: design and tips for beginners. Korean J Urol 2012;53:165-170.
27.
Cáceres F, Cabrera PM, Mateo E, Andrés G, Lista F, García-Tello A, et al: [Onset of a training program for single-port laparoscopic urology]. Actas Urol Esp 2012;36:418-424.
28.
Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A, Pagliarulo V, Falsaperla M, Volpe A, et al: Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques, and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional European cohort. J Endourol 2014;28:951-957.
29.
Greco F, Cindolo L, Autorino R, Micali S, Stein RJ, Bianchi G, et al: Laparoendoscopic single-site upper urinary tract surgery: assessment of postoperative complications and analysis of risk factors. Eur Urol 2012;61:510-516.
30.
Tracy CR, Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA: Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Urology 2009;74:1029-1034.
31.
Schwentner C, Todenhöfer T, Seibold J, Alloussi SH, Aufderklamm S, Mischinger J, et al: Upper urinary tract laparoendoscopic single-site surgery based on a novel cost-effective reusable platform. J Endourol 2013;27:202-207.
32.
Schwentner C, Todenhöfer T, Seibold J, Alloussi S, Aufderklamm S, Mischinger J, et al: Cost effective laparoendoscopic single-site surgery with a reusable platform. JSLS 2013;17:285-291.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.