Objective: To compare the results of the first and second 60 patients undergoing laparo-scopic urologic surgery and to assess the factors associated with complications.
Material and Methods: We evaluated ret-rospectively a total of 120 laparascopic urologic procedures performed between November 2011 and January 2016. The first 60 patients were called as group A and the second 60 patients as group B. Perioperative complications were evaluated by Satava, and postoperative compli-cations by Clavien classification system. Two groups compared regarding age, the ASA score, duration of operation, number of port, duration of drain and urethral cateter placement, hospi-talisation and complications.
Results: The mean age of the group A was 39.4±20.2 years and group B was 34.8±20.7 years, and there was no statistical difference in mean age between the two groups (p=0.222). Twenty (33.3%) complications were seen in group A and nine (15%) in group B. This differ-ence was statistically significant (p=0.019). The ASA score of the patients were similar in both groups (p=0.711). There was no differences be-tween the two groups regarding number of port, duration of operation, drain and urethral cateter placement and hospitalisation.
Conclusions: Complications is reduced with experience, so less experienced urologist should select appropriate patient and less diffi-cult procedures in their initial experience with laparoscopy. We think that, urologist should perform difficult procedures after gaining expe-rience due to it may reduce complication rate.
Keywords: Laparoscopy, Complication, Urology
Abstract
Objective: To compare the results of the first and second 60 patients undergoing laparo-scopic urologic surgery and to assess the factors associated with complications.
Material and Methods: We evaluated ret-rospectively a total of 120 laparascopic urologic procedures performed between November 2011 and January 2016. The first 60 patients were called as group A and the second 60 patients as group B. Perioperative complications were evaluated by Satava, and postoperative compli-cations by Clavien classification system. Two groups compared regarding age, the ASA score, duration of operation, number of port, duration of drain and urethral cateter placement, hospi-talisation and complications.
Results: The mean age of the group A was 39.4±20.2 years and group B was 34.8±20.7 years, and there was no statistical difference in mean age between the two groups (p=0.222). Twenty (33.3%) complications were seen in group A and nine (15%) in group B. This differ-ence was statistically significant (p=0.019). The ASA score of the patients were similar in both groups (p=0.711). There was no differences be-tween the two groups regarding number of port, duration of operation, drain and urethral cateter placement and hospitalisation.
Conclusions: Complications is reduced with experience, so less experienced urologist should select appropriate patient and less diffi-cult procedures in their initial experience with laparoscopy. We think that, urologist should perform difficult procedures after gaining expe-rience due to it may reduce complication rate.
Keywords: Laparoscopy, Complication, Urology