Is LESS really more?

• Main Authors: Joseph A Graversen, Achim Lusch, Jaime Landman
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2012-01-01
• Series: Indian Journal of Urology
• Subjects: Comparative series of LESS vs. laparoscopy; comparison between LESS and standard laparoscopy; laparoendoscopic single-site surgery; LESS; LESS and cosmesis; LESS and cost; LESS and surgical risk; multiport laparoscopy
• Online Access: http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2012;volume=28;issue=1;spage=82;epage=88;aulast=Graversen
• ISSN: 0970-1591; 1998-3824

In the last decade, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has been touted to be the part of the ′evolution′ of minimally invasive surgery. The hope is that reduced access points will ultimately decrease pain, morbidity, convalescence, and improve cosmesis. However, what is unique about LESS is that while laparoscopic literature sought to demonstrate superiority of the technique over that of open surgery, the publications on LESS generally seem to seek to demonstrate equivalence with laparoscopy, with the major focus being on cosmesis. Unfortunately, even in that regard the objective cosmesis data is lacking. Furthermore, patients rate cosmesis the least important of all factors. LESS has also been associated with increased risk of complication, increased surgical cost, and longer operative times. In the current review, an objective assessment of the literature will be used for comparison between current standard laparoscopic techniques and LESS with the hopes of answering the question: is LESS really more?