title: Complications of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery in urology.
abstract: 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.
authors: Department of Urology, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.
authors: Hagop
authors: H
authors: Sarkissian
authors: Brian H
authors: BH
authors: Irwin
keywords: Complications; LESS; laparoendoscopic surgery; laparoscopy; minimally invasive; single port; single site
references: Urology. 2009 Oct;74(4):801-4
references: 19615721
references: J Endourol. 2011 Mar;25(3):465-9
references: 21355773
references: Urology. 2007 Dec;70(6):1039-42
references: 18158008
references: Eur Urol. 2009 Oct;56(4):644-50
references: 19576681
references: Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):998-1005
references: 21684069
references: BJU Int. 2009 Feb;103(4):516-21
references: 18778351
references: J Endourol. 2011 Mar;25(3):365-70
references: 21198375
references: Urology. 2009 Oct;74(4):805-12
references: 19643465
references: BJU Int. 2011 Oct;108(8):1326-9
references: 21410632
references: BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107(8):1284-9
references: 20840326
references: Korean J Urol. 2011 Jan;52(1):31-8
references: 21344028
references: Urology. 2011 Dec;78(6):1332-7
references: 21996107
references: J Endourol. 2011 Sep;25(9):1481-5
references: 21902517
references: Surg Endosc. 2010 Apr;24(4):762-8
references: 19997938
references: Eur Urol. 2012 Mar;61(3):510-6
references: 21871705
references: Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):631-4
references: 21067800
references: Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
references: 15273542
references: Urology. 2008 Dec;72(6):1190-3
references: 19041022
references: J Endourol. 2009 Aug;23(8):1319-24
references: 19591621