Urologic laparoscopy.

Abstract

Urologic laparoscopy initially was confined to a diagnostic role or the treatment of benign conditions. Many of these initial procedures, however, have been abandoned because they offered no significant benefit over open surgery. The treatment of urologic malignancies, however, recently has emerged as the most common indication for laparoscopic urologic surgery. Maturing data for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy and partial nephrectomy demonstrate equivalent oncologic results. Newer applications such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are evolving. Despite these data demonstrating many advantages as compared with open techniques, urologists have been slow to include laparoscopy in their practice. This reluctance has been seen in other disciplines and is no doubt, at least in part, caused by the steep learning curve. Laparoscopic management of urologic malignancies is complicated and difficult to learn. In a multi-institutional review of laparoscopic complications, 71% of the complications occurred in the first 20 cases. The risk of complications and operative time significantly declines with experience, however. Higashihara et al reported a decline in laparoscopic operative time to levels comparable to open radical nephrectomy. The learning curve seems to be approximately 30 to 40 cases. The scope and practice of urology does not provide a common procedure of relatively low complexity such as the general surgical cholecystectomy or gynecologic tubal ligation to facilitate the adoption of laparoscopy by urologists. Nevertheless, evolving techniques and equipment coupled with the incorporation of laparoscopic training in residency and fellowship programs will help secure laparoscopy a prominent place in the treatment of urologic malignancy.