Critical review of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus multiport laparoscopy in urology

Continued advancement in laparoscopy and a desire for less-invasive surgical approach has led to the development of novel surgical approaches, including laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). LESS in urology has not reached the pinnacle yet. Objective of this study is to provide an evidence-based analysis of the current status and future directions of minimal access and minimally invasive urological surgery represented by LESS in comparison with classic multiport laparoscopic surgery. Since the initial report of single-port nephrectomy in 2007, the majority of laparoscopic procedures in urology have been described with a single-site approach. Multi-center experience has validated Urological LESS procedures as technically feasible and safe for various urologic diseases. Certainly, several issues must be overcome before LESS can practiced universally in urology. Development of instrumentation and platform, long term follow up and large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to provide an accurate comparative analysis with other procedures to confirm the significant benefits of LESS

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant