Editorial Comment

Abstract

The model builder who assembles a ship in a bottle takes on the challenge of working through a small opening. The difficulty of the approach is its appeal. In contrast, the ability to do major procedures through small incisions and ports has defined benefits beyond working with reduced exposure and the loss of haptic feedback. It improves cosmesis, decreases recovery time, lessens discomfort, and shortens the hospital stay. If an operation can be performed through a series of ports, it is logical to extend the basic idea and question whether it is possible to work through fewer ports, a single large port or a number of closely situated ports. The benefits, cosmetically, are clear; however, the potential risk of steric hindrance between the camera and instruments is increased. How this method is superior to the standard minimally invasive method (outside of cosmesis) is still unclear. Transumbilical Multiport Laparoscopic Orchiopexy in Children: Comparison With Standard Laparoscopic OrchiopexyUrologyVol. 80Issue 6PreviewTo compare the clinical outcomes of transumbilical multiport laparoscopic orchiopexy (TMLO) vs standard laparoscopic orchiopexy (SLO) for 1-stage management of impalpable testes in children. Full-Text PDF ReplyUrologyVol. 80Issue 6PreviewWe appreciate the insightful comments on our report. After the first description of urologic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in 2007,1 emerging studies have reported the lower postoperative morbidity and improved cosmetic outcome of LESS for almost all urologic procedures. However, the expensive cost of the specific devices and the long learning curve of LESS have severely limited its application in many countries, especially the developing countries. Thus, it is currently urgent to seek a feasible and alternative procedure. Full-Text PDF