Literature DB >> 15149749

Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma.

Olivier Bouchot1, Jérome Rigaud, Frédéric Maillet, Jean François Hetet, Georges Karam.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and the consequences of complications related to modified and radical inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with invasive penile carcinoma, defined by invasion of the corpus spongiosum or cavernosum (> or =T2).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 118 modified (67.0%), and 58 radical (33.0%) inguinal lymphadenectomy were performed in 88 patients between 1989 and 2000. To decrease the morbidity, radical inguinal lymphadenectomy was proposed only in patients with palpable inguinal lymph nodes, uni- or bilaterally (N1 or N2). Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed bilaterally in patients with invasive penile carcinoma and non-palpable inguinal lymph nodes (N0), and unilaterally in the side without inguinal metastases in N1 patients. Complications were assessed retrospectively with a median follow-up of 46 months and classified as early (event observed during the 30 days after the procedure) or late (event present after hospitalisation or after the first months).
RESULTS: A total of 74 complications after 176 procedures were recorded. After modified inguinal lymphadenectomy, 8 early (6.8%) and 4 late (3.4%) complications were observed. There were a total of 110 dissections with no complications and 8 dissections with 1 or 2 complications. After radical inguinal lymphadenectomy, the morbidity increased with 24 early (41.4%) and 25 late (43.1%) complications, observed in only 18 of 58 radical procedures. Leg oedema was the most common late complication, interfering with ambulation in 13 cases (22.4%).
CONCLUSION: Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy, with saphenous vein sparing and limited dissection offers excellent functional outcome in patients with invasive penile carcinoma and nonpalpable inguinal lymph nodes. The morbidity after radical lymphadenectomy still significant, especially in patients with multiple or bilateral superficial inguinal lymph nodes treated by pelvic and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15149749     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  29 in total

1.  Prospective assessment of postoperative complications and associated costs following inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) in melanoma patients.

Authors:  Sharon B Chang; Robert L Askew; Yan Xing; Storm Weaver; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Jeffrey E Lee; Richard Royal; Anthony Lucci; Merrick I Ross; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis.

Authors:  Andrew Leone; Gregory J Diorio; Curtis Pettaway; Viraj Master; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  [The significance of lymphadenectomy in the management of penile cancer].

Authors:  M Angerer-Shpilenya; G Jakse
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  [Management of lymphatic fistulas in the groin from a surgeon's perspective].

Authors:  B Juntermanns; A E Cyrek; J Bernheim; J N Hoffmann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Lymphoscintigraphy in penile cancer: limited value of sentinel node biopsy in patients with clinically suspicious lymph nodes.

Authors:  E Hungerhuber; B Schlenker; D Frimberger; R Linke; A Karl; C G Stief; P Schneede
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Successful doxycycline treatment of lymphatic fistulas: report of five cases and review of the literature.

Authors:  Thilo Hackert; Jens Werner; Martin Loos; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 7.  Challenges and controversies in the management of penile cancer.

Authors:  Majid Shabbir; Oliver Kayes; Suks Minhas
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  [Lymph node management of cN0 penile cancer].

Authors:  F Wawroschek; A Winter
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  What next? Managing lymph nodes in men with penile cancer.

Authors:  Michael Leveridge; D Robert Siemens; Christopher Morash
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 10.  Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications.

Authors:  Philippe E Spiess; Mike S Hernandez; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.