World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 273–276 | Cite as

Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: first experience with the novel Da Vinci single-site platform

  • R. Mathieu
  • G. Verhoest
  • S. Vincendeau
  • A. Manunta
  • K. Bensalah
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To report our first cases of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) radical nephrectomy with the novel Da Vinci R-LESS platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA).

Methods

Six radical nephrectomies were performed with R-LESS Da Vinci single-site port and instruments. Data concerning patients characteristics, indication of surgery, operative and postoperative outcomes were collected.

Results

All procedures were completed successfully. Two patients required the placement of an additional port. Median operative, docking and console times were 179 min (range 120–318), 19 min (range 15–24) and 129 min (range 100–264), respectively. Median blood loss was 100 ml (range 50–800). No significant robotic-related problem was noticed during the procedures. There was no operative or major postoperative (Clavien >2) complication. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days.

Conclusion

Our initial experience of R-LESS radical nephrectomies with the novel Da Vinci platform shows that the procedure is feasible. Indications, safety and place of the technique will be confirmed with growing experience.

Keywords

Robotic Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery R-LESS Single-site surgery Nephrectomy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ et al (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol 60:998–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM et al (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 59:26–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Escobar PF, Fader AN, Paraiso MF, Kaouk JH, Falcone T (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: initial report and technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:589–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stein RJ, White WM, Goel RK, Irwin BH, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2010) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using GelPort as the access platform. Eur Urol 57:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White MA, Haber GP, Autorino R et al (2010) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy: technique and early outcomes. Eur Urol 58:544–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han WK, Kim DS, Jeon HG et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: partial nephrectomy for renal malignancy. Urology 77:612–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haber GP, White MA, Autorino R et al (2010) Novel robotic da Vinci instruments for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Urology 76:1279–1282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Laydner H et al (2012) Robotic single-site kidney surgery: evaluation of second-generation instruments in a cadaver model. Urology 79:975–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G et al (2012) Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol 62:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T (1996) ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 77:217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Micali S, Pini G, Teber D et al (2013) New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery. What is beyond the robot? World J Urol 31:505–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Autorino R, Kaouk JH, Stolzenburg JU et al (2013) Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63:266–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP et al (2010) “Chopstick” surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24:1331–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White MA, Autorino R, Spana G et al (2011) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: surgical technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol 59:815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E et al (2013) Robotic single-site hysterectomy in low risk endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol 20:2759–2764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroh M, El-Hayek K, Rosenblatt S et al (2011) First human surgery with a novel single-port robotic system: cholecystectomy using the da Vinci single-site platform. Surg Endosc 25:3566–3573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morel P, Hagen ME, Bucher P, Buchs NC, Pugin F (2011) Robotic single-port cholecystectomy using a new platform: initial clinical experience. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2182–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konstantinidis KM, Hirides P, Hirides S, Chrysocheris P, Georgiou M (2012) Cholecystectomy using a novel single-site® robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 26:2687–2694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cela V, Freschi L, Simi G, Ruggiero M, Tana R, Pluchino N (2013) Robotic single-site hysterectomy: feasibility, learning curve and surgical outcome. Surg Endosc 27:2638–2643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V et al (2012) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc 26:1648–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Mathieu
    • 1
  • G. Verhoest
    • 1
  • S. Vincendeau
    • 1
  • A. Manunta
    • 1
  • K. Bensalah
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, CHU PontchaillouCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de RennesRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations