Feasibility and safety of conventional laparoscopic instruments in laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery: Experience with one hundred cases

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of conventional laparoscopic instruments in common urological laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) procedures. Methods: From 2008 to 2010, we retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from 100 patients who underwent LESS procedures by a single surgeon for various common urological indications. The LESS operations included adrenalectomy (n = 15), radical nephrectomy (n = 3), radical nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff resection (n = 5), varicocelectomy (n = 12), nephropexy (n = 4), lumbar sympathectomy (n = 4), and adult hernia mesh repair (n = 57). Results: All procedures were completed successfully without ancillary ports or articulating instruments, except in two cases that required laparoscopic conversion. The mean patient age was 48.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 23.8. The mean operative time was 99.7 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 17.3. mL, and the mean hospital stay was 2.1 days. No intra-operative complication occurred. Conclusion: Our experience revealed that the usage of conventional laparoscopic instruments is feasible and safe in common urological LESS procedures. © 2011.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tsai, Y. C. (2011). Feasibility and safety of conventional laparoscopic instruments in laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery: Experience with one hundred cases. Formosan Journal of Surgery, 44(6), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fjs.2011.10.002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free