Laparoscopic surgery in urology

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Not more than 10 years ago, laparoscopy was introduced to the armamentarium of urology. The start was slow, with pelvic lymphadenectomy, nephrectomy and varicocelectomy being about the only indications. However, very soon great enthusiasm developed, and almost every urological operation was performed by means of laparoscopy. For several reasons this exaggerated enthusiasm had to be followed by disappointment. First of all, laparoscopy turned out not to be as easy as many would have liked it to be. Due to a low frequency of operations, many surgeons were never able to overcome their learning curve, and the early literature reflects this problem. Unlike general surgery where cholecystectomy developed into a pacemaker operation, which forced everybody to go ahead with laparoscopy, urology was long searching for good and frequent indications for this new technique. Within the last few years, the pendulum has swung back to the other side. Adrenalectomy was one of the first indications where laparoscopy proved superior to open surgery in every aspect. Several other good indications have followed, some of which, namely cryptorchidism, nephrectomy and pyeloplasty, will be presented in detail to give an example. But the breakthrough that recently occurred is due to the success of laparoscopy in the field of oncologic surgery. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy has shown its surgical efficiency as well as its oncologic efficacy. However, the main interest is now focused on radical prostatectomy, since this is the most frequently performed operation in urology by now. Recently this operation could be developed to a standardized technique, but only time will tell its true impact. Several indications will change in the future, but laparoscopy is here to stay.