title: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology using conventional instruments: our initial experience.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To present our initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) urologic surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments and to assess its feasibility and safety.
  
  
  METHODS
  In 20 patients, we performed LESS urologic surgery, which included simple nephrectomy in 9, nephroureterectomy in 1 for a refluxing nonfunctioning kidney, radical nephroureterectomy in 1, heminephroureterectomy in 1 for a nonfunctioning upper moiety in a complete duplex kidney, marsupialization of a renal cyst in 1, ureterolithotomy in 1, varicocelectomy in 2, pyeloplasty in 2, vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair in 1, and orchiopexy in 1. LESS was performed using a small periumbilical incision, inserting regular trocars, and using a conventional 30-degree laparoscope and laparoscopic instruments. Data were collected prospectively with respect to feasibility, intraoperative or postoperative complications, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and recovery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Since March, 2012, a total of 20 patients have undergone LESS for various urologic conditions. All cases were completed successfully, without conversion to a standard laparoscopic or open approach. The total operative time for the nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, pyeloplasty, VVF repair, ureterolithomy, varicocelectomy, or orchiopexy was 134 ± 20.06, 186 ± 40, 135 ± 21, 180, 150, 55, and 60, minutes, respectively. The mean blood loss was 100 mL. No intraoperative complication occurred. The mean pain score on the visual analog scale was 8.35 ± 0.9 (8-10) on day 1, 4.8 ± 1.6 (2-8) on day 2, and 2 ± 1.2 (2-4) on day 3. Similarly, the mean analgesic requirement was 220 ± 41 mg, 85 ± 74 mg, and 30 ± 47 mg of intravenous tramadol, respectively. One patient had surgical emphysema of the abdomen and another had ileus for 4 days. The mean hospital stay was 2.9 ± 1.7 (2-7) days.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In selected patients, LESS for urological indications using conventional laparoscopic instruments is safe and feasible with no added cost. Additional experience and continued investigation are warranted.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Nephro-Urology , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nagabhushana
authors.forename: Anant J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Kamath
authors.forename: C S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Manohar
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007431:Intraoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control; D020706:Laparoscopes; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014570:Urologic Diseases / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014572:Urology / Q000379:methods*; D055815:Young Adult