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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Actas urológicas españolas (English ed.) 2018-06, Vol.42 (5), p.299-308 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 |