Complications of Port Placement

  • Alexis Sánchez
  • Jose Rosciano


Port placement represents the cornerstone of minimally invasive surgery procedures; an improper placement translates into difficulties leading to an extension of the operating time and sometimes requiring reposition of the trocars. As in laparoscopic surgery, there are complications in robotic surgery also when placing a port; carrying out a proper training and performing an adequate learning curve have shown a significant decrease in the rate of complications at this important phase. At the first step of surgery, pneumoperitoneum creation and primary trocar placement, is where the largest number of unwanted events occur. There are several techniques, which have proven to be equally effective, with similar rates of complications; therefore, the surgeon should use the method that s/he has more experience with and the one s/he feels more comfortable with. It is always important to individualize each case, to identify risk factors, and to choose the ideal techniques and instruments for prevention. In robotic surgery, there are special considerations regarding port placement, this allows a proper docking, avoiding a clash of the robot arms. Undoubtedly, no surgeon is free of complications, but an early diagnosis is crucial to resolve them timely and effectively, reducing this way the morbidity and mortality rate. Abdominal access and proper port placement without complications are key to the success of robotic surgery. When complications do occur, an excellent training will allow them to be managed appropriately.


Complications Port placement Robotic Prevention Management 


  1. 1.
    Vilos G, Vilos A, Abu-Rafae B, Hollet-Caines J, Nikkhah-Abyaneh Z, Edris F. Three simple steps during closed laparoscopic entry may minimizes major injuries. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(4):758–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pemberton R, Tolley D, van Velthoven R. Prevention and management of complications in urological laparoscopic port site placement. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):958–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rabl C, Palazzo F, Aoki H, Campos G. Initial laparoscopic access using an optical trocar without pneumoperitoneum is safe and effective in the morbidity obese. Surg Innov. 2008;15(2):126–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khrishnakumar S, Tambe P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009;1(1):4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parsons J, Jarrett T, Chow G, Kavoussi L. The effect of previous abdominal surgery on urological laparoscopy. J Urol. 2002;168(6):2387–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vilos G, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge P. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(5):433–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curet M. Special problems in laparoscopic surgery. Previous abdominal surgery, and pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80(4):1093–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guleria K, Manjusha, Suneja A. Near fatal haemoperitoneum of rare origin following laparoscopic sterilization. J Postgrad Med. 2001;47(2):143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Frede T, Loening S. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162(3):765–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teoh B, Sen R, Abbott J. An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veres needle placement at closed laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(2):153–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azevedo J, Azevedo O, Miyahira S, Miguel G, Becker O Jr, Hypólito O, et al. Injuries caused by Veress needle insertion for creation of pneumoperitoenum: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(7):1428–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmad G, Gent D, Henderson D, O’Flynn H, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Available from:;jsessionid=74EB0D95A5AB4DE2FD2C5545A0FBE903.f04t03.
  13. 13.
    Thomas M, Rha K, Ong A, Pinto P, Montgomery R, Kavoussi L, et al. Optical access trocar injuries in urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol. 2003;170(1):61–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shirk G, Johns A, Redwine D. Complications of laparoscopic surgery: how to avoid them and how to repair them. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(4):352–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13(1):1–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharp H, Dodson M, Draper M, Watts D, Doucette R, Hurd W. Complications associated with optical-access laparoscopic trocars. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(4):553–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Passerotti C, Begg N, Penna F, Passerotti A, Leite K, Antunes A, et al. Safety profile of trocar and insufflation needle access systems in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(2):222–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Ziaee S, Tabibi A, Nauralizadeh A, Radfar M, et al. Major vascular injury in laparoscopic urology. JSLS. 2014:18(3).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suarez C. Chapter 12, Vascular complications in laparoscopy. In: Prevention & management of laparoendoscopic surgical complications [internet]. 1999. Available from:
  20. 20.
    Wind J, Cremers J, van Berge Henegouwen M, Gouma D, Jansen F, Bemelman W. Medical liability insurance claims on entry-related complications in laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):2094–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central University of Venezuela, Robotic Surgery Program Coordinator, University Hospital of Caracas, Ciudad UniversitariaCaracasVenezuela
  2. 2.Robotic Surgery Program, University Hospital of Caracas, Ciudad UniversitariaCaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations