Browsing by Author "Stein, RJ"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery.Publication . Autorino, R; Stein, RJ; Lima, E; Damiano, R; Khanna, R; Haber, GP; White, MA; Kaouk, JHObjective of this study is to provide an evidence-based analysis of the current status and future perspectives of scarless urological surgery. A PubMed search has been performed for all relevant urological literature regarding natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). In addition, experience with LESS and NOTES at our own institution has been considered. All clinical and investigative reports for LESS and NOTES procedures in the urological literature have been considered. A wide variety of clinical procedures in urology have been successfully completed by using LESS techniques. Thus far, experience with NOTES has largely been investigational, although early clinical reports are emerging. Further development of instrumentation and platforms is necessary for both techniques to become more widely adopted throughout the urological community.
- Low-cost reusable instrumentation for laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy: assessment in a porcine modelPublication . Autorino, R; Kim, FJ; Rane, A; De Sio, M; Stein, RJ; Micali, S; Correia-Pinto, J; Kaouk, JH; Lima, EPURPOSE: To test different sets of prebent instruments and a new reusable access device for laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three surgeons with previous experience in LESS performed 12 nephrectomies in six pigs. In all procedures, a multichannel access device (X-CONE) and a 5-mm extra-long telescope were used. Four sets of prebent instruments with different profiles (S-portal) were tested: Standard (one straight scissors and one curved grasper), Cuschieri, Carus, and Leroy set (each of them consisting of two curved instruments with different configurations). Assessment was performed based on both objective (procedure time; time to manage the pedicle; time to free kidney) and subjective parameters (entry/exit of instruments; triangulation; dissection up/down; dissection lateral; retraction; interdependence). The subjective assessment tool used was a Likert type scale (1 = easy to 5 = prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to complete insertion of device after skin incision) and subjective (significant air leakage, movement constraint) parameters. RESULTS: Time to insertion of the X-CONE was <1 minute in all the cases. Surgeons reported significant insufflant leakage in 58% of cases. The procedure was completed in 10/12 (83%) cases. Mean operative time was 8.3 ± 4.2 minutes, being lower for the Carus group (4.5 min) and higher for the standard group (13 min). Among the different sets, the standard one obtained the best mean scores for all subjective parameters. CONCLUSIONS: X-CONE allows easy abdominal access, and its reusable properties represent cost savings for LESS compared with disposable devices. Prebent instruments might also represent attractive low-cost tools for LESS.