Abstract
Any new surgical approach or technique requires a stringent inquisition of its relative merits and risks. When laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced nearly two decades ago, a small rise in complications during the learning curve of the procedure was accepted by both physicians and patients given the tangibly lessened morbidity and shortened convalescence that were associated with the approach [1]. Single port laparoscopy was conceptualized and refined over the last 18 months in an attempt to further reduce patient discomfort and to improve cosmesis. Collectively, over 200 single port urologic procedures have been successfully completed and include both extirpative and reconstructive indications [2–4]. Thus far, results have been generally favorable with a modicum of complications commensurate with any new technique. However, the superiority of the single port approach as compared to standard laparoscopy has yet to be firmly established [4]. Given that the single port approach is, at least in the short term, demonstrating only marginal differential benefit, complications with single port surgery must be critically evaluated. This chapter will offer a brief review of the single port laparoscopic literature with an emphasis on reported complications and finally outline our algorithm for addressing single port adverse events.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Gilchrist BF, Vlessis AA, Kay GA, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an initial analysis. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1991;1:193–6.
Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Goel RK, et al. Single-port laparoscopic surgery in urology: initial experience. Urology. 2008;71:3–6.
Desai MM, Rao PP, Aron M, et al. Scarless single port transumbilical nephrectomy and pyeloplasty: first clinical report. BJU Int. 2008;101:83–8.
Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rao P, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: initial urological experience and comparison with natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. BJU Int. 2008;101:493–6.
Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic surgery of the kidney. In: Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2007. pp. 1759–809.
Wheeless CR. A rapid, inexpensive and effective method of surgical sterilization by laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1969;3:65–9.
Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med. 1991;88:721–6.
D’Alessio A, Piro E, Tadini B, et al. One-trocar transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy in children: our experience. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2002;12:24–7.
Rane A, Kommu S, Eddy B, et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel laparoscopic port (R-port) and evolution of the single laparoscopic port procedure (SLiPP). J Endourol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:A22–3.
White WM, Goel RK, Kaouk JH. Single port laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery: initial operative experience and comparative outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(6):1279.
White WM, Goel RK, Swartz MA, et al. Single port laparoscopic abdominal sacral colpopexy: initial experience and comparative outcomes. Urology. 2009;74(5):1008–12.
Gill IS, Canes D, Aron M, et al. Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;180:637–41.
Stein RJ, White WM, Goel RK, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using GelPort as the access platform. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):132–6.
2008 Medical Innovation Summit Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. November 10–12, 2008.
Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, et al. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2,407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162:765–70.
Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, et al. Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures at a single center. J Urol. 2002;168:23–6.
White WM, Haber GP, Goel RK, et al. Single port urologic surgery: single center experience with the first 100 cases. Urology. 2009;74(4):801–4.
Irwin BH, Berger A, Tracy CR, et al. Factors leading to conversion from single port to conventional laparoscopy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2009;181:531.
Desai MM, Berger A, Aron M, et al. Single-Port Transvesical Enucleation of the Prostate (STEP): clinical experience. J Urol. 2009;181:699.
Kaouk JH, Goel RK. Single-port laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1163–9.
Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al. Single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:10.1190–3.
Desai MM, Stein R, Rao P, et al. Embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (E-NOTES) for advanced reconstruction: initial experience. Urology. 2009;73:182–7.
Aron M, Canes D, Desai MM, et al. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2008;103:516–21.
Ponsky LE, Cherullo EE, Sawyer M, et al. Single access site laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: initial clinical experience. J Endourol. 2008;22:663–6.
Rane A, Ahmed S, Kommu SS, et al. Single-port ‘scarless’ laparoscopic nephrectomies: the United Kingdom experience. BJU Int. 2009;104(2):230–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
White, W.M., Goel, R.K., Kaouk, J.H. (2010). Complications of Single Port Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. In: Ghavamian, R. (eds) Complications of Laparoscopic and Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-676-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-676-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-675-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-676-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)