OBJECTIVES: To compare short- and long-term morbidity associated with saphenous vein sparing versus ligation during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar carcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients with carcinoma of the vulva that underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed. Operative reports were evaluated and patients were divided into those who had sparing of the saphenous vein versus ligation. Postoperative short- and long-term complications were compared between the two groups using Pearson chi squared analysis. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 inguinal lymphadenectomies performed on 29 patients. The saphenous vein was spared in 18 (37%) groin dissections compared to 31(63%) in which the saphenous vein was ligated. The two groups were similar in regards to clinical characteristics. All patients received closed suction drains and prophylactic antibiotics. Median number of nodes dissected was similar. Cellulitis was more common in the vein-ligated group compared to the vein-spared group (45% vs. 0%; P < 0.001). Wound breakdown occurred in 25% of dissections where the saphenous vein was ligated versus 0% in dissections where the vein was spared (P = or < 0.02). Short-term edema (< or = 6 months) was similar between vein-ligated and vein-spared groups (67% vs. 72%, P < 1.0). Subsequently, chronic lymphedema (> 6 months) persisted in 38% of the vein-ligated group compared to 11% in the vein-spared group (P < 0.05). The incidence of recurrent disease was similar in both groups (19.3 % vs. 22.2% P < 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Routine preservation of the saphenous vein during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar carcinoma may reduce the incidence of wound cellulitis, wound breakdown, and chronic lymphedema.
OBJECTIVES: To compare short- and long-term morbidity associated with saphenous vein sparing versus ligation during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar carcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients with carcinoma of the vulva that underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed. Operative reports were evaluated and patients were divided into those who had sparing of the saphenous vein versus ligation. Postoperative short- and long-term complications were compared between the two groups using Pearson chi squared analysis. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 inguinal lymphadenectomies performed on 29 patients. The saphenous vein was spared in 18 (37%) groin dissections compared to 31(63%) in which the saphenous vein was ligated. The two groups were similar in regards to clinical characteristics. All patients received closed suction drains and prophylactic antibiotics. Median number of nodes dissected was similar. Cellulitis was more common in the vein-ligated group compared to the vein-spared group (45% vs. 0%; P < 0.001). Wound breakdown occurred in 25% of dissections where the saphenous vein was ligated versus 0% in dissections where the vein was spared (P = or < 0.02). Short-term edema (< or = 6 months) was similar between vein-ligated and vein-spared groups (67% vs. 72%, P < 1.0). Subsequently, chronic lymphedema (> 6 months) persisted in 38% of the vein-ligated group compared to 11% in the vein-spared group (P < 0.05). The incidence of recurrent disease was similar in both groups (19.3 % vs. 22.2% P < 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Routine preservation of the saphenous vein during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar carcinoma may reduce the incidence of wound cellulitis, wound breakdown, and chronic lymphedema.
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
Authors: Johannes Baur; Katrin Mathe; Anja Gesierich; Gerhard Weyandt; Armin Wiegering; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Martin Gasser; Jörg O W Pelz Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Peter Dall; Thomas Hildebrandt; Andreas du Bois; Eric Boetel; Janine Ahlfaenger; Matthias W Beckmann; Mareike Bommert Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 2.344