Georges Pascal Haber

Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery

Inderbir S. Gill • Arnold P. Advincula • Monish Aron • Jeffrey Caddedu • David Canes • Paul G. Curcillo II • Mihir M. Desai • John C. Evanko • Tomasso Falcone • Victor Fazio • Matthew Gettman • Andrew A. Gumbs • Georges-Pascal Haber • Jihad H. Kaouk • Fernando Kim • Stephanie A. King • Jeffrey Ponsky • Feza Remzi • Homero Rivas • Alexander Rosemurgy • Sharona Ross • Philip Schauer • Rene Sotelo • Jose Speranza • John Sweeney • Julio Teixeira

Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery in Urology: Worldwide Multi-institutional Analysis of 1076 Cases

BACKGROUND Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has gained popularity in urology over the last few years. OBJECTIVE To report a large multi-institutional worldwide series of LESS in urology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Consecutive cases of LESS done between August 2007 and November 2010 at 18 participating institutions were included in this retrospective analysis. INTERVENTION Each group performed a variety of LESS procedures according to its own protocols, entry criteria, and techniques. MEASUREMENTS Demographic data, main perioperative outcome parameters, and information related to the surgical technique were gathered and analyzed. Conversions to reduced-port laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy, or open surgery were evaluated, as were intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 1076 patients were included in the analysis. The most common procedures were extirpative or ablative operations in the upper urinary tract. The da Vinci robot was used to operate on 143 patients (13%). A single-port technique was most commonly used and the umbilicus represented the most common access site. Overall, operative time was 160±93 min and estimated blood loss was 148±234 ml. Skin incision length at closure was 3.5±1.5 cm. Mean hospital stay was 3.6±2.7 d with a visual analog pain score at discharge of 1.5±1.4. An additional port was used in 23% of cases. The overall conversion rate was 20.8%; 15.8% of patients were converted to reduced-port laparoscopy, 4% to conventional laparoscopy/robotic surgery, and 1% to open surgery. The intraoperative complication rate was 3.3%. Postoperative complications, mostly low grade, were encountered in 9.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a global view of the evolution of LESS in the field of minimally invasive urologic surgery. A broad range of procedures have been effectively performed, primarily in the academic setting, within diverse health care systems around the world. Since LESS is performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, the risk of complications remains low when stringent patient-selection criteria are applied.

Nomenclature of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES™) and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) Procedures in Urology

INTRODUCTION The twenty first century has witnessed some amazing advancements in surgery. In urology minimally invasive surgery has become the standard treatment for many disease processes and procedures. One of the newest innovations into this field has been the development of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS). While the practice and application of these new techniques are in their infancy, there has been a great deal of confusion regarding the nomenclature and terminology associated with these procedures. The aim of this publication is to attempt to define the many issues associated with the standardization of terminology for these procedures in order to promote effective scientific progress and communication. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search using Medline and pubmed focusing on all terminology to describe NOTES and LESS from 1990 to 2008 was done. In addition, various acronyms were searched using four separate online acronym databases. The information was recorded by number of citations and by the number of citations specific to the urologic literature. Based on common usage, definitions and criteria were developed to describe these procedures for current scientific publication. These terms were then collectively reviewed and agreed upon by the Urologic NOTES Working Group as a platform for consensus to begin the arduous process of standardization. RESULTS There is wide variation in the terminology and use of acronyms for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery. The keyword literature search uncovered 8710 citations from MEDLINE and pubmed, with 363 citations specific to urology. There was significant overlap in the search of different terms. The search of established abbreviation and acronym databases revealed many citations, but relatively few specific to urology. CONCLUSION Standardization of the nomenclature applied to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is essential as the body of literature continues to grow in order to allow clear and precise scientific communication. As the techniques continue to evolve, we propose that NOTES and LESS be designated as the common terms to define these new procedures in urology.

Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: heralding a new era in urology?

Matthew T. Gettman *, Geoffrey Box , Timothy Averch , Jeffrey A. Cadeddu , Edward Cherullo , Ralph V. Clayman , Mihr Desai , Igor Frank , Indebir Gill , Mantu Gupta , Georges-Pascal Haber , Mitchell Humphreys , Jihad Kaouk , Jaime Landman , Estevao Lima , Lee Ponsky e Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, United States University of California Irvine, CA, United States University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA, United States University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, United States University of Minho, School of Health Science, Braga, Portugal

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Single-surgeon Matched Cohort Study of 150 Patients

OBJECTIVES To present comparative outcomes among matched patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by a single surgeon at a single institution. METHODS Between March 2002 and August 2009, a retrospective review of 261 consecutive patients who underwent LPN (n = 186) or RPN (n = 75) by a single surgeon was performed. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and tumor size, side, and location. Perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS A matched cohort of 150 patients who underwent RPN (n = 75) or LPN (n = 75) were compared. There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to patient age (P = .17), BMI (P = .68), ASA score (P = .96), preoperative estimated glomerulofiltration rate (eGFR; P = .54), or tumor size (P = .17). Mean operative time for RPN was 200 vs 197 minutes for LPN (P = .75). Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was higher in the RPN cohort (323 vs 222 mL, P = .01). There was no significant difference with respect to warm ischemia time (18.2 minutes vs 20.3 minutes, P = .27), length of hospitalization (P = .84), percent change in eGFR (P = .80), or adverse events (P = .52). All surgical margins were negative. CONCLUSIONS Although initial surgical experience with RPN was included in this study and compared with a vast experience in LPN by the same surgeon, RPN offers at least comparable outcomes to LPN.

Pure Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) Transvaginal Nephrectomy

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) within urology has largely been limited to experimental animal studies and diagnostic procedures in humans. Attempts to complete a pure NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy have thus far been unsuccessful. We report the first clinical experience with pure NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy. A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent urinary tract infections and an atrophic right kidney. Transvaginal access was obtained through a 3-cm posterior colpotomy. The right kidney was mobilized, the renal hilum was divided, and the specimen was removed through the vaginal incision. Operative time was 420 min. Estimated blood loss was 50 ml. There were no perioperative complications.

NOTES Transvaginal Nephrectomy: First Human Experience

OBJECTIVES To present the operative outcomes of the first natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) transvaginal nephrectomy. METHODS A 57-year-old woman with hypertension, right-sided flank pain, and radiographic evidence of an atrophic right kidney consented for NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy. Pneumoperitoneum was achieved with a Veress needle inserted deep in the umbilicus. Under direct vision, a colpotomy was made and a transvaginal port positioned. Using standard and articulating operating instruments inserted transvaginally, the kidney was mobilized and the renal hilum was controlled with an endovascular stapler. The kidney was placed in a laparoscopic retrieval bag and extracted through the vaginal incision. Salient demographic and operative data were obtained. RESULTS NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy was successfully completed, with all the operative steps performed transvaginally. Dense pelvic adhesions from a prior hysterectomy necessitated the use of a 5-mm umbilical port during vaginal port placement and for retraction of the ascending colon during division of the renal hilum. No intraoperative complications occurred. Operative time was 307 minutes, with 124 minutes dedicated to vaginal port placement and 183 minutes dedicated to adhesiolysis and nephrectomy. The duration of hospitalization was 23 hours. The visual analog pain scale score was 1 of 10 on postoperative day 2. CONCLUSIONS Our experience shows that NOTES transvaginal nephrectomy is technically feasible. Access to the peritoneal cavity should be performed under visual guidance and after insufflation through the umbilicus. Additional experience is needed to better define patient selection criteria and indications for NOTES transvaginal urologic surgery.

Robotic and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND Extended oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive cystectomy have not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE To report outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) for bladder cancer (BCa) at up to 12-yr follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS All 121 patients undergoing RARC or LRC for BCa between December 1999 and September 2008 at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated from a prospectively maintained database. INTERVENTION RARC or LRC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary end points were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Secondary end points were survival analysis by number of lymph nodes (LNs) and type of procedure. Surgical outcomes, including complications, were analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Most tumors were muscle invasive (≥ pT2; n=81; 67%) urothelial carcinomas (n=102; 84%). Extended LN dissection was performed in 98 patients (81%), with a median of 14 nodes removed (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-18). Twenty-four patients (20%) had node-positive disease (N1: 10 [8%]; N2: 14 [12%]). Eight patients (6.6%) had positive soft tissue margins. Median follow-up was 5.5 yr (mean: 5.9; IQR: 4.2-8.2; range: 0.13-12.1). At last follow-up, 58 patients (48%) had no evidence of disease, 3 (2%) were alive with recurrence, 59 (49%) had died, and status was unknown in 1. Twenty-eight patients (23%) died from cancer-specific causes, 20 (17%) from unrelated causes, and 11 (9%) from unknown causes. The 10-yr actuarial OS, CSS, and RFS rates were 35%, 63%, and 54%, respectively. At last follow-up, OS for pT0, pTis/a, pT1, pT2, and pT3 versus pT4 was 67%, 73%, 53%, 50%, and 16% versus 0%, respectively (p=0.02). At last follow-up, CSS for pT0, pTis/a, pT1, pT2, and pT3 versus pT4 was 100%, 91%, 74%, 77%, and 56% versus 0%, respectively (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS The longest oncologic outcomes following RARC and LRC for BCa reported demonstrates results similar to those reported for open RC. Continued analysis and direct randomized comparison between techniques is necessary.

Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT Over the last decade, robot-assisted adrenalectomy has been included in the surgical armamentarium for the management of adrenal masses. OBJECTIVE To critically analyze the available evidence of studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic adrenalectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic literature review was performed in August 2013 using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic search engines. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Nine studies were selected for the analysis including 600 patients who underwent minimally invasive adrenalectomy (277 robot assisted and 323 laparoscopic). Only one of the studies was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) but of low quality according to the Jadad scale. However, the methodological quality of included nonrandomized studies was relatively high. Body mass index was higher for the laparoscopic group (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 3.01 to -1.74; p<0.00001). A transperitoneal approach was mostly used for both techniques (72.5% of robotic cases and 75.5% of laparoscopic cases; p=0.27). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.75; p=0.61) and operative time (WMD: 5.88; 95% CI, -6.02 to 17.79; p=0.33). There was a significantly longer hospital stay in the conventional laparoscopic group (WMD: -0.43; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.30; p<0.00001), as well as a higher estimated blood loss (WMD: -18.21; 95% CI, -29.11 to -7.32; p=0.001). There was also no statistically significant difference in terms of postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.00; p=0.05) between groups. Most of the postoperative complications were minor (80% for the robotic group and 68% for the conventional laparoscopic group). Limitations of the present analysis are the limited sample size and including only one low-quality RCT. CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted adrenalectomy can be performed safely and effectively with operative time and conversion rates similar to laparoscopic adrenalectomy. In addition, it can provide potential advantages of a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower occurrence of postoperative complications. These findings seem to support the use of robotics for the minimally invasive surgical management of adrenal masses.

Where do we really stand with LESS and NOTES

Matthew T. Gettman *, Wesley M. White, Monish Aron, Riccardo Autorino, Tim Averch, Geoffrey Box, Jeffrey A. Cadeddu, David Canes, Edward Cherullo, Mihir M. Desai, Igor Frank, Indebir S. Gill, Mantu Gupta, Georges-Pascal Haber, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Brian H. Irwin, Jihad H. Kaouk, Louis R. Kavoussi, Jaime Landman, Evangelos N. Liatsikos, Estevao Lima, Lee E. Ponsky, Abhay Rane, Maria Ribal, Robert Rabenhalt, Pradeep Rao, Lee Richstone, Mark D. Sawyer, Rene Sotelo, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, Chad R. Tracy, Robert J. Stein; Endourological Society NOTES and LESS Working Group; European Society of Urotechnology NOTES and LESS Working Group E U RO P E AN URO LOGY 5 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 1 – 2 3 4