Abstract
Purpose Since its introduction 5 years ago, almost all open urological procedures have been performed laparoscopically. We provide an in-depth critical review. Materials and Methods More than 200 articles on laparoscopic urology were reviewed. All laparoscopic procedures were divided into clinically established, clinically anecdotal and laboratory procedures. Comparisons between the laparoscopic and open method were carefully analyzed. Results There were 5 clinically established procedures identified. In general, the laparoscopic procedures were as efficacious but less morbid and required less convalescence than their open counterparts; however, none was less costly. Conclusions Despite the time-consuming and costly nature of laparoscopy, the decreased morbidity and brief convalescence that are the hallmarks of minimally invasive surgery are evident and well documented. Further dissemination of laparoscopic skills through postgraduate urology training programs and during urology residency is of the utmost importance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
