Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

The quest to make minimally invasive techniques even more 'minimal' has generated a drive within the surgical community to explore novel ways of achieving this. This has led to surgeons attempting to either decrease the number of trocars placed through the abdominal wall or eliminate them completely. This led to the evolution of several approaches, including natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), single port access surgery and one port umbilical surgery (OPUS) or E-NOTES. The most recent consensus on nomenclature involves the term laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). The transition from multiple port access surgery to single port access surgery represents a paradigm shift in reconstructive and extirpative surgery and is a testament to the recent advances in surgical technology. Successful LESS involves the use of articulating or bent instrumentation via a single large-caliber trocar or small, adjacent trocars. Advances in technology have led to the development of new laparoscopic access ports (R-Port and Quadriport by Advanced Surgical Concepts, Wicklow, Ireland; and Uni-X Single Port, PNavel Systems, Cleveland, OH, USA) capable of permitting several instruments to be inserted through multiple channels incorporated in, and as part of, a larger single port. The development of articulating and bent instrumentation permits triangulation intracorporeally despite the close proximity of several instruments via a single port. Currently, commercially available instruments can be broadly divided into articulating laparoscopic graspers and shears (Real Hand, Novare Surgical Systems, Cupertino, CA, USA; and Autonomy Laparo-angle, Cambridge Endo, Framingham, MA, USA), endoshears (Cambridge Endo), and laparoscopic needle drivers (Cambridge Endo). Despite the preliminary optimistic results in the outcomes of LESS, an experienced laparoscopic skill set is essential for the safe and effective completion of surgery.

We reviewed the preliminary advances in laparo‐endoscopic single‐site surgery (LESS) as applied to renal surgery, and analyzed current publications based on animal models and human patients. We searched published reports in major urological meeting abstracts, Embase and Medline (1966 to 25 August 2008), with no language restrictions. Keyword searches included: ‘scarless’, ‘scar free’, ‘single port/trocar/incision’, ‘intraumbilical’, and ‘transumbilical’, ‘natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery’ (NOTES), ‘SILS’, ‘OPUS’ and ‘LESS’. The lessons learnt from the studies using the porcine model are that further advances in instrumentation are essential to achieve optimum results, and that testing survival in animals is also necessary to further expand the NOTES and LESS techniques. Further advances in instrument technology together with increasing experience in NOTES and LESS approaches have driven the transition from porcine models to human patients. In the latter, studies show that the techniques are feasible provided that both optimal surgical technical expertise with advanced skills, and optimal instrumentation, are available. The next step towards minimal access/minimally invasive urological surgery is NOTES and LESS. It is inevitable that LESS will be extended to involve more complex and technically demanding procedures such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE To present the UK experience to date with laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery (LESS) simple nephrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five female patients underwent LESS nephrectomy; three procedures were carried out with the umbilicus as the port of entry (U‐LESS). RESULTS All cases were completed uneventfully. The operative duration was 45–150 min and blood loss was negligible. There were no conversions to conventional multi‐port laparoscopy or open surgery. Recovery was uneventful with only minor complications in two patients; convalescence was rapid. CONCLUSION LESS nephrectomy offers a safe, cosmetic alternative to conventional multi‐port laparoscopy, with younger female patients being especially happier with the ‘scarless’ outcome of U‐LESS. LESS certainly appears to be more in these situations.

The urologist involved in the management of genitourinary tract trauma needs to recognize the patterns of urethral injury, especially those associated with certain pelvic fractures. A judicious and systematic approach coupled with a conscious effort to minimize short and long-term sequelae of all urethral injuries will ensure optimal results. There is a need for a consensus on the optimal management of each of the vast arrays of urethral injuries.