Implementation of laparoscopy as an alternative to conventional open procedures was developed rather late in urologic surgery. However, as an alternative to conventional surgery it has gained much attention in the last few years due to the desire for the prevention of large access, perioperative trauma, comparable oncologic and functional results, and patient demand. Whereas certain laparoscopic/retroperitoneoscopic techniques such as radical kidney surgery for T1 tumor disease, adrenalectomy or pyeloplasty have almost become the gold standard within a relatively short period of time, others, such as partial tumor nephrectomy, retroperitoneal lymphnode dissection, cystectomy and especially radical prostatectomy, are highly debated. In order to focus not only on the advantages of the value of laparoscopy, the drawbacks of the diVerent techniques have to be discussed scientiWcally. To critically address this matter we invited internationally recognized laparoscopic surgeons to either present their own data or review the current literature regarding complications of laparoscopy in urology. Liapis et al. present their data of 600 patients treated retroperitoneoscopically for kidney or adrenal disease. They Wnd advantages to the laparoscopic approach because of time saved and prevention of intraperitoneal Wbrous adhesions. In their opinion, complications and reinterventions are due to the lack of experienced trainers in the evolution of the retroperitoneoscopic approach. Zimmermann et al. reviewed the literature on the complications of partial nephrectomy and present technical modiWcations for its prevention. They conclude that laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is a challenging option for selected cases but then again equivalent to open partial nephrectomy. Rassweiler et al. combined a literature review including 601 patients with their personal data of 189 cases of retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty. Using the Clavien classiWcation, their group identiWed 12.9–15.8% with postoperative complications. Ruszat et al. report their experience of living-donor nephrectomy in 164 cases. Their group faced minor complications without persistent impairment for the donor in 17.7% of cases; however, 1.8% of patients required operative reintervention. Warm ischemia time was comparable to open surgery with 131 § 45 s. Strebel et al. discuss complications of laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Beside the typical bowel, liver, spleen and vascular injuries, the rate of pancreatic injury in left laparoscopic adrenalectomies was as high as 8.6%. Kenney et al. performed a meta-analysis of complications occurring either during primary or post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymphnode dissection. The most common complication was vascular injury (2.2–20%). Rates of retrograde ejaculation were less than 5%. Liatsikos et al. report on their experience of 1,800 consecutive patients receiving endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Only two patients with an intraoperative recognized rectal injury and subsequent two layer suturing developed rectourethral Wstula. Of 842 cases with lymphadenectomy, the rate of lymphocele was 2.5%. Stolzenburg et al. from the same group present their data on routine M. Burchardt (&) Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Medical School of Hanover, Carl Neuberg Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany e-mail: burchardt.martin@mh-hannover.de