Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review

There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML). To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology. We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.) 2018-06, Vol.42 (5), p.299-308
Hauptverfasser: Pérez-Lanzac, A, García-Baquero, R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng ; spa
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 308
container_issue 5
container_start_page 299
container_title Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.)
container_volume 42
creator Pérez-Lanzac, A
García-Baquero, R
description There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML). To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology. We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of 6 comparative articles and 13 series were selected for this manuscript. Only 1 study was randomised, 4 studies were prospective and comparative, and most were case series in which the operations were performed with 3-mm instruments. The most common procedures were adrenalectomy, followed by nephrectomy, living donor and pyeloplasty. Other minor conditions were also operated on, including cyst decortications, pyelolithotomies, lymphadenectomies, varicocelectomies and orchiectomies. There have been significant technical improvements in recent years in the materials of ML. Most procedures were for reconstructive surgery and by transperitoneal approach, with a gradually increasing number of cases of oncologic surgery. Only 36.8% of the series assessed the cosmetic results with validated questionnaires, and 68.4% of the studies used the visual analogue scale to measure pain during the postoperative period. The level of evidence of most published studies is low. ML is a reproducible technique for urological surgery and is safe even for operations on large surgical masses. The procedure's cosmetic and pain results after surgery are superior to those of conventional laparoscopy, although these conclusions should be taken with caution given the limitations of the current studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1935388349</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1935388349</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-2f4f1c6ee55e98aea7570ed452c04af95c0579fc347c1df42bd2b7c6027ed6c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1j0tLw0AcxBdBbKn9BILk6CVx3w9vUrQKFQ_qOWw2_5UtebmbKPn2BqzDwFx-zDAIXRFcEEzk7bGwbop9QTFRBV6M9RlaU6JYLpSWK7RN6YgXSc6EYRdoRbWWQmGzRvlL6EJjBxv75PphzkKXLV1N_znfZW9zGqG1Y3BZhO8AP5fo3NsmwfaUG_Tx-PC-e8oPr_vn3f0hHyghY04998RJACHAaAtWLWNQc0Ed5tYb4bBQxjvGlSO157SqaaWcxFRBLR1hG3Tz1zvE_muCNJZtSA6axnbQT6kkhgmmNeNmQa9P6FS1UJdDDK2Nc_l_kf0C4hdTXg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1935388349</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Pérez-Lanzac, A ; García-Baquero, R</creator><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Lanzac, A ; García-Baquero, R</creatorcontrib><description>There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML). To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology. We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of 6 comparative articles and 13 series were selected for this manuscript. Only 1 study was randomised, 4 studies were prospective and comparative, and most were case series in which the operations were performed with 3-mm instruments. The most common procedures were adrenalectomy, followed by nephrectomy, living donor and pyeloplasty. Other minor conditions were also operated on, including cyst decortications, pyelolithotomies, lymphadenectomies, varicocelectomies and orchiectomies. There have been significant technical improvements in recent years in the materials of ML. Most procedures were for reconstructive surgery and by transperitoneal approach, with a gradually increasing number of cases of oncologic surgery. Only 36.8% of the series assessed the cosmetic results with validated questionnaires, and 68.4% of the studies used the visual analogue scale to measure pain during the postoperative period. The level of evidence of most published studies is low. ML is a reproducible technique for urological surgery and is safe even for operations on large surgical masses. The procedure's cosmetic and pain results after surgery are superior to those of conventional laparoscopy, although these conclusions should be taken with caution given the limitations of the current studies.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2173-5786</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28865709</identifier><language>eng ; spa</language><publisher>Spain</publisher><subject>Humans ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><ispartof>Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.), 2018-06, Vol.42 (5), p.299-308</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28865709$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Lanzac, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Baquero, R</creatorcontrib><title>Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review</title><title>Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.)</title><addtitle>Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)</addtitle><description>There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML). To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology. We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of 6 comparative articles and 13 series were selected for this manuscript. Only 1 study was randomised, 4 studies were prospective and comparative, and most were case series in which the operations were performed with 3-mm instruments. The most common procedures were adrenalectomy, followed by nephrectomy, living donor and pyeloplasty. Other minor conditions were also operated on, including cyst decortications, pyelolithotomies, lymphadenectomies, varicocelectomies and orchiectomies. There have been significant technical improvements in recent years in the materials of ML. Most procedures were for reconstructive surgery and by transperitoneal approach, with a gradually increasing number of cases of oncologic surgery. Only 36.8% of the series assessed the cosmetic results with validated questionnaires, and 68.4% of the studies used the visual analogue scale to measure pain during the postoperative period. The level of evidence of most published studies is low. ML is a reproducible technique for urological surgery and is safe even for operations on large surgical masses. The procedure's cosmetic and pain results after surgery are superior to those of conventional laparoscopy, although these conclusions should be taken with caution given the limitations of the current studies.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><issn>2173-5786</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1j0tLw0AcxBdBbKn9BILk6CVx3w9vUrQKFQ_qOWw2_5UtebmbKPn2BqzDwFx-zDAIXRFcEEzk7bGwbop9QTFRBV6M9RlaU6JYLpSWK7RN6YgXSc6EYRdoRbWWQmGzRvlL6EJjBxv75PphzkKXLV1N_znfZW9zGqG1Y3BZhO8AP5fo3NsmwfaUG_Tx-PC-e8oPr_vn3f0hHyghY04998RJACHAaAtWLWNQc0Ed5tYb4bBQxjvGlSO157SqaaWcxFRBLR1hG3Tz1zvE_muCNJZtSA6axnbQT6kkhgmmNeNmQa9P6FS1UJdDDK2Nc_l_kf0C4hdTXg</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Pérez-Lanzac, A</creator><creator>García-Baquero, R</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review</title><author>Pérez-Lanzac, A ; García-Baquero, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-2f4f1c6ee55e98aea7570ed452c04af95c0579fc347c1df42bd2b7c6027ed6c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; spa</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Lanzac, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Baquero, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pérez-Lanzac, A</au><au>García-Baquero, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.)</jtitle><addtitle>Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)</addtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>299</spage><epage>308</epage><pages>299-308</pages><eissn>2173-5786</eissn><abstract>There has been a boom in recent years in urological procedures using minilaparoscopy (ML). To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence on ML and its current role in urology. We performed a search on MedLine spanning October 1983 to December 2016 according to PRISMA criteria. A total of 6 comparative articles and 13 series were selected for this manuscript. Only 1 study was randomised, 4 studies were prospective and comparative, and most were case series in which the operations were performed with 3-mm instruments. The most common procedures were adrenalectomy, followed by nephrectomy, living donor and pyeloplasty. Other minor conditions were also operated on, including cyst decortications, pyelolithotomies, lymphadenectomies, varicocelectomies and orchiectomies. There have been significant technical improvements in recent years in the materials of ML. Most procedures were for reconstructive surgery and by transperitoneal approach, with a gradually increasing number of cases of oncologic surgery. Only 36.8% of the series assessed the cosmetic results with validated questionnaires, and 68.4% of the studies used the visual analogue scale to measure pain during the postoperative period. The level of evidence of most published studies is low. ML is a reproducible technique for urological surgery and is safe even for operations on large surgical masses. The procedure's cosmetic and pain results after surgery are superior to those of conventional laparoscopy, although these conclusions should be taken with caution given the limitations of the current studies.</abstract><cop>Spain</cop><pmid>28865709</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.008</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2173-5786
ispartof Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.), 2018-06, Vol.42 (5), p.299-308
issn 2173-5786
language eng ; spa
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1935388349
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Humans
Laparoscopy - methods
Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods
title Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T06%3A01%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minilaparoscopy%20in%20urology:%20Systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Actas%20urol%C3%B3gicas%20espa%C3%B1olas%20(English%20ed.)&rft.au=P%C3%A9rez-Lanzac,%20A&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=299&rft.epage=308&rft.pages=299-308&rft.eissn=2173-5786&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1935388349%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1935388349&rft_id=info:pmid/28865709&rfr_iscdi=true