OBJECTIVES: To describe our pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) technique during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and to evaluate the nodal yield and perioperative outcomes. PLND is commonly performed with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Because of the limitations of the robotic arm pitch in accessing the pelvic sidewall and undersurface of the iliac bifurcation, uro-oncologists have questioned the adequacy of robotic PLND. METHODS: PLND was routinely performed on men with higher risk preoperative prostate cancer parameters (ie, prostrate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL, primary Gleason score > or =4, or clinical Stage T2b or greater). The outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral, standard template PLND (group 1; n = 296 [26%]) were compared with those of a cohort of 859 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients (74%) without PLND (group 2). We also compared these data with those from a single-surgeon experience of open, standard-template PLND for retropubic radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 12.5 (interquartile range 7-16). The mean operative time (224 vs 216 minutes; P = .09), estimated blood loss (206 vs 229 mL; P = .14), and hospital stay (1.32 vs 1.24 days; P = .46) were comparable between the 2 groups. The rate of intraoperative complications (1% vs 1.5%; P = .2), overall postoperative complications (9% vs 7%; P = .8), and lymphocele formation (2% vs 0%; P = .9) were not significantly different. The review of our open series and the historically published open standard-template PLND series revealed a mean yield of 15 and a range of 6.7-15 lymph nodes removed, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the feasibility and low complication rate of robotic standard-template PLND with lymph node yields comparable to those with open PLND. Considering the low morbidity of PLND in experienced hands, coupled with the potential of preoperative undergrading and understaging and the therapeutic benefit to patients with micrometastatic disease, an increase in overall standard-template PLND use should be considered.
OBJECTIVES: To describe our pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) technique during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and to evaluate the nodal yield and perioperative outcomes. PLND is commonly performed with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Because of the limitations of the robotic arm pitch in accessing the pelvic sidewall and undersurface of the iliac bifurcation, uro-oncologists have questioned the adequacy of robotic PLND. METHODS: PLND was routinely performed on men with higher risk preoperative prostate cancer parameters (ie, prostrate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL, primary Gleason score > or =4, or clinical Stage T2b or greater). The outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral, standard template PLND (group 1; n = 296 [26%]) were compared with those of a cohort of 859 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients (74%) without PLND (group 2). We also compared these data with those from a single-surgeon experience of open, standard-template PLND for retropubic radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 12.5 (interquartile range 7-16). The mean operative time (224 vs 216 minutes; P = .09), estimated blood loss (206 vs 229 mL; P = .14), and hospital stay (1.32 vs 1.24 days; P = .46) were comparable between the 2 groups. The rate of intraoperative complications (1% vs 1.5%; P = .2), overall postoperative complications (9% vs 7%; P = .8), and lymphocele formation (2% vs 0%; P = .9) were not significantly different. The review of our open series and the historically published open standard-template PLND series revealed a mean yield of 15 and a range of 6.7-15 lymph nodes removed, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the feasibility and low complication rate of robotic standard-template PLND with lymph node yields comparable to those with open PLND. Considering the low morbidity of PLND in experienced hands, coupled with the potential of preoperative undergrading and understaging and the therapeutic benefit to patients with micrometastatic disease, an increase in overall standard-template PLND use should be considered.
Authors: Abdullah M Alenizi; Roger Valdivieso; Emad Rajih; Malek Meskawi; Cristian Toarta; Marc Bienz; Mounsif Azizi; Pierre Alain Hueber; Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin; Vincent Trudeau; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Raul O Parra; Jonathan A Coleman; Rodrigo Pinochet; Karim A Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Johannes Bründl; Sebastian Lenart; Gjoko Stojanoski; Christian Gilfrich; Bernd Rosenhammer; Michael Stolzlechner; Anton Ponholzer; Christina Dreissig; Steffen Weikert; Maximilian Burger; Matthias May Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Andrew H Feifer; Elena B Elkin; William T Lowrance; Brian Denton; Lindsay Jacks; David S Yee; Jonathan A Coleman; Vincent P Laudone; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860