Surgical Outcomes of Two Specimen Extraction Incision Techniques Following Laparoscopic Nephrectomy

Year 2026, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 16 - 23, 24.02.2026

Tugay Aksakalli , Adem Utlu , Feyzullah Çelik , Ahmet Cinislioğlu , İbrahim Karabulut

https://doi.org/10.56766/ntms.1848528

https://izlik.org/JA67JK66WP

Abstract

Purpose
The type of incision used for specimen extraction during laparoscopic nephrectomy may influence postoperative pain, wound-related complications, cosmetic outcomes, and healing. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of two specimen extraction incision techniques used in laparoscopic nephrectomy: fusion of the first and third port sites versus extension of the third port site.

Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy between 2020 and 2024. Patients were divided into two groups according to the extraction incision technique: fusion of the first and third ports (Group 1) and extension of the third port (Group 2). Demographic data, perioperative variables, postoperative pain scores, wound-related complications, and long-term incision outcomes were compared between groups.

Results
A total of 87 patients were included (Group 1: n=46; Group 2: n=41). Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were comparable between groups. Operative time, postoperative day 1 and first-month VAS scores, length of hospital stay, drain removal time, and transfusion rates showed no significant differences. Incision length was significantly shorter in Group 2 (p=0.007). Although not statistically significant, wound infection, hypertrophic scarring, and skin depression were observed more frequently in Group 1. The incidence of incisional hernia was low and similar between groups.

Conclusion
Both specimen extraction techniques demonstrated acceptable and safe outcomes following laparoscopic nephrectomy. However, the fusion of port sites was associated with a longer incision and a higher tendency toward wound-healing–related issues. Extension of the third port may be a preferable option to minimize incision length and wound-related concerns. Further prospective, randomized studies with larger cohorts are warranted.

Keywords

Nephrectomy , Laparoscopy , Wound , Incision types

References

• 1. Bird VG, Shields JM, Aziz M, et al., Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for patients with T2 and T3 renal-cell carcinoma: evaluation of perioperative outcomes. J Endourol. 2009;23(9): 1527-33.
• 2. Kano T, Kim H, Kawakami M et al., Preoperative factors affecting the operative outcomes of laparoscopic nephrectomy. Int J Urol. 2022;29(7):757-63.
• 3. Shuford MD, McDougall EM, Chang SS, et al., Complications of contemporary radical nephrectomy: comparison of open vs. laparoscopic approach. Urol Oncol. 2004;22(2): 121-26.
• 4. Vanderbrink BA, Ost MC, Rastinehad A, et al., Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis: Contemporary outcomes analysis. J Endourol. 2007; 21(1): 65-70.
• 5. Kercher, K.W., et al., Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(12):1889-95.
• 6. Suárez Sal PJ, Fernández-Pello Montes, Rúger Jiménez L et al., Comparative study of intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic nephrectomy by Pfannenstiel incision. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2023;47(4): 229-35.
• 7. Doğan, S., B. Çelik, and M.J.E.B. Yılmaz, The effect of specimen extraction site on patient satisfaction in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Endourol Bull. 2020;12(2): 122-28.
• 8. Punukollu R, Arias S, Ohara S et al., Incisional Hernia Risk Reduction for Living Kidney Donors: Kidney Extraction Site Matters. J Am Coll Surg. 2025;241(2):195-202.
• 9. Bollero D, Malvasio V, Catalano F, Stella M. Negative pressure surgical management after pathological scar surgical excision: a first report. Int Wound J. 2015;12(1):17-21.
• 10. Bergman S, Deban M, Martelli V et al., Association between quality of care and complications after abdominal surgery. Surgery. 2014;156(3):632-39.
• 11. Isand KG, Saar S, Bahhir A, et al. A Care Bundle to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study. World J Surg, 2025;49(7): p. 1795-1802.
• 12. Abbo, L.M. and P.A. Grossi. Surgical site infections: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Clin Transplant. 2019;3(9):e13589.
• 13. Liu Z, Dumville JC, Norman G, et al., Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):Cd012653.
• 14. Ling ML, Apisarnthanarak A, Abbas A et al., APSIC guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2019. 8:174.
• 15. Haskins, IN, Hernia Formation: Risk Factors and Biology. Surg Clin North Am. 2023;103(5):835-46.
• 16. Perim V, Nogueira R, Kasakewitch JPG et al., Incisional hernia incidence following laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia. 2025;29(1):152.
• 17. Grantcharov TP and J. Rosenberg. Vertical compared with transverse incisions in abdominal surgery. Eur J Surg. 2001;167(4):260-67.
• 18. Binsaleh, S, Madbouly K, Matsumoto ED, Kapoor A. A Prospective Randomized Study of Pfannenstiel Versus Expanded Port Site Incision for Intact Specimen Extraction in Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2015;29(8): 913-18.
• 19. Tisdale BE, Kapoor A, Hussain A, Piercey K, WhelanJP. Intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic nephrectomy procedures: Pfannenstiel versus expanded port site incisions. Urology. 2007;69(2): 241-44.
• 20.Charipova K, Gress K, Berger AA., et al., A Comprehensive Review and Update of Post-surgical Cutaneous Nerve Entrapment. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2021. 25(2):11.