Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoscopy introduction has dramatically changed urology. Novel techniques, such as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), might also have substantial influence. This 2012 survey evaluated present laparoscopy use, its appraisal among urologic surgeons, laparoscopy training, and use of new techniques. Results were compared to the previous surveys, demonstrating the 10-year development of laparoscopy.

Methods

A detailed questionnaire regarding demographic data, laparoscopy use, attitudes concerning laparoscopy, and novel techniques was send to 424 departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Procedures performed in 25 indications were quantitatively evaluated.

Results

The response rate was 63 % (269). Eighty-six percent of the respondents reported performing laparoscopy, compared to 54 % in 2002. Only 16 % expected economic advantages with laparoscopy, whereas 67 % expected shorter hospitalization. Seventy percent of responders anticipated comparable functional and oncological results between laparoscopic procedures and open surgery. Slow learning curves (81 %) and insufficient training facilities (32 %) were reported to impair laparoscopic surgery. On average, laparoscopic and non-laparoscopic surgical teams consisted of 2.5 and 3.5 members, respectively. LESS procedures were performed at 15 % of institutions. Twenty-two percent of respondents considered NOTES techniques valuable for future urology. Few indications (laparoscopic prostatectomies or nephrectomies) were performed frequently in specialized centers, and the rapidly increasing procedure numbers observed between 2002 and 2007 had dropped to a mild accretion. The results demonstrate broad acceptance of laparoscopy in German urologic surgery, depict the need for structured training facilities, and indicate limited impact of novel techniques (LESS and NOTES).

Conclusions

The survey demonstrates the 10-year development of urologic laparoscopy and the broad acceptance of laparoscopic techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ et al (1991) Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med 324(19):1370–1371 Epub 1991/05/09

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lane BR, Gill IS (2010) 7-Year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol 183(2):473–479 Epub 2009/12/17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58(3):398–406 Epub 2010/07/17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hruza M, Weiss HO, Pini G et al (2010) Complications in 2200 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies: standardised evaluation and analysis of learning curves. Eur Urol 58(5):733–741 Epub 2010/08/31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Busch J, Stephan C, Herold A et al (2012) Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E985–E990 Epub 2012/06/08

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoznek A, Menard Y, Salomon L, Abbou CC (2005) Update on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 15(3):173–180 Epub 2005/04/09

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kowalczyk KJ, Yu HY, Ulmer W, Williams SB, Hu JC (2012) Outcomes assessment in men undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 30(1):85–89 Epub 2011/03/03

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thorsteinsdottir T, Stranne J, Carlsson S et al (2011) LAPPRO: a prospective multicentre comparative study of robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 45(2):102–112 Epub 2010/12/01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Do M, et al (2013) Laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: technical issues and outcome. World J Urol 31(4):785–791. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0754-4

  10. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71 Epub 2010/11/09

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Caceres F, Cabrera PM, Garcia-Tello A, Garcia-Mediero JM, Angulo JC (2012) Safety study of umbilical single-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a New DuoRotate System. Eur Urol 62(6):1143–1149. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.043

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rabenalt R, Arsov C, Giessing M, Winter C, Albers P (2010) Extraperitoneal laparo-endoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy: first experience. World J Urol 28(6):705–708 Epub 2010/03/30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar U, Gill IS (2006) Learning curve in human laparoscopic surgery. Curr Urol Rep 7(2):120–124 Epub 2006/03/11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Secin FP, Savage C, Abbou C et al (2010) The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an international multicenter study. J Urol 184(6):2291–2296 Epub 2010/10/19

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frede T, Erdogru T, Zukosky D, Gulkesen H, Teber D, Rassweiler J (2005) Comparison of training modalities for performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience with 1,000 patients. J Urol 174(2):673–678. Discussion 8. Epub 2005/07/12

    Google Scholar 

  16. Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Rassweiler J et al (2009) Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol 56(6):1074–1080 Epub 2008/10/14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vogeli TA, Burchardt M, Fornara P, Rassweiler J, Sulser T (2002) Current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologists in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol 42(5):441–446 Epub 2002/11/14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D (2000) Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 37(3):241–250 Epub 2000/03/18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greco F, Hoda MR, Mohammed N, Springer C, Fischer K, Fornara P (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic radical nephrectomy result in equivalent surgical trauma: preliminary results of a single-centre retrospective controlled study. Eur Urol 61(5):1048–1053 Epub 2012/02/14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Landman J, Olweny E, Sundaram CP et al (2004) Prospective comparison of the immunological and stress response following laparoscopic and open surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 171(4):1456–1460 Epub 2004/03/17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greco F, Hoda MR, Wagner S et al (2010) Adipocytokine: a new family of inflammatory and immunologic markers of invasiveness in major urologic surgery. Eur Urol 58(5):781–787 Epub 2010/08/10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nagele U, Walcher U, Herrmann TR (2012) Initial experience with laparoscopic single-incision triangulated umbilical surgery (SITUS) in simple and radical nephrectomy. World J Urol 30(5):613–618 Epub 2011/04/05

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Ragavan N et al (2012) Clinical outcomes of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery radical nephrectomy. World J Urol 30(5):589–596 Epub 2011/10/01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Georgiou AN, Rassweiler J, Herrmann TR et al (2012) Evolution and simplified terminology of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), and mini-laparoscopy (ML). World J Urol 30(5):573–580 Epub 2012/07/14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewandowski PM, Leslie S, Gill I, Desai MM (2012) Laparo-endoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: techniques and outcomes. Arch Esp Urol 65(3):318–328 Epub 2012/04/13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bevers RF, Pelger RC (2008) Laparoscopic practice patterns in the Netherlands in 2005. J Endourol 22(5):969–972 Epub 2008/03/29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rabah D, Abumostafa N, Sulaihim A, Arafa M (2010) Survey of urologic laparoscopic practice patterns in Saudi Arabia. J Endourol 24(8):1293–1295 Epub 2010/07/16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salkini MW, Hamilton AJ (2010) The effect of age on acquiring laparoscopic skills. J Endourol 24(3):377–379 Epub 2009/10/21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stolzenburg JU, Schwaibold H, Bhanot SM et al (2005) Modular surgical training for endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 96(7):1022–1027 Epub 2005/10/18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Florian Imkamp, Thomas R. W. Herrmann, Sebastian Dziuba & Markus A. Kuczyk

  2. Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Jens U. Stolzenburg

  3. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Am Gesundbrunnen 20, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany

    Jens Rassweiler

  4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Tullio Sulser

  5. Clinic of Urology, University Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch-Strasse, 17475, Greifswald, Germany

    Uwe Zimmermann & Martin Burchardt

Authors
  1. Florian Imkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas R. W. Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens U. Stolzenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jens Rassweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tullio Sulser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Uwe Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sebastian Dziuba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Markus A. Kuczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martin Burchardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Burchardt.

Additional information

Florian Imkamp and Thomas R. W. Herrmann have equally contributed to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Imkamp, F., Herrmann, T.R.W., Stolzenburg, J.U. et al. Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists. World J Urol 32, 1363–1374 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1250-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1250-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation