4.6 Article

Complications during the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 108, Issue 8, Pages 1326-1329

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10078.x

Keywords

LESS; laparoendoscopic single-site surgery; minimally invasive laparoscopy; pyeloplasty; complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To review our initial series of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasties, focusing on 30-day complication rates as an indicator of learning curve, and to define the expected morbidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study comprised 28 patients who underwent LESS pyeloplasty by a single surgeon from October 2007. A chart review was undertaken to identify the complications that occurred within the first 30 days after surgery. RESULTS The mean operating time was 197 min. Seven patients (25%) experienced a total of eight complications. Four patients required nephrostomy tube placement (14%) during the early postoperative period, two for symptomatic obstruction despite the ureteral stent and two for a urine leak. Another had urine leakage that resolved spontaneously after she went home with the surgical drain for 1 week. One patient (4%) developed a retroperitoneal haematoma and required blood transfusion and one had haematuria that prolonged hospital stay by 2 days. Of the patients experiencing complications, 71% were in the first ten cases. Only two complications occurred in the subsequent 18 patients. CONCLUSIONS The LESS pyeloplasty procedure is a technically difficult, even for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon and the surgical challenges of this technique may translate to a higher complication rate for LESS than for conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty early in the learning curve. However, within a relatively few cases, the complication rate is similar to that of standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Additional follow-up is required to determine the long-term success rate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available