Literature DB >> 23067251

Endoscopic inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy--extended follow-up.

Christian Schwentner1, Tilman Todenhöfer, Joerg Seibold, Saladin H Alloussi, Johannes Mischinger, Stefan Aufderklamm, Arnulf Stenzl, Georgios Gakis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFLA) is a standard procedure for cancer of the external genitalia. Open lymphadenectomy (O-IFLA) exhibits complication rates of more than 50%. We are demonstrating our extended experience with a modified endoscopic approach (E-IFLA) for groin lymphadenectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonpalpable as well as those with palpable nodes who had IFLA were identified. O-IFLA comprised both superficial and deep inguinal lymph node dissection. E-IFLA was performed using a three-trocar approach in the same field. We used a reduced CO2-pressure of <5 mm Hg. A suction drain was always placed. Perioperative data and postoperative outcomes were systematically assessed followed by statistical analysis.
RESULTS: We performed 62 IFLAs in 42 patients. Twenty-eight procedures were completed endoscopically. Follow-up was 55.8 months (2-87 mos). Mean operative time for O-IFLA was 101.7 minutes (38-195 min), being shorter than for E-IFLA (136.3 min, 87-186 min), P<0.001. Both groups are comparable regarding the number of nodes (O-IFLA 7.2, 2-16 vs E-IFLA 7.1, 4-13) as well as with regard to the number of positive nodes (O-IFLA 1.8 vs E-IFLA 1.6). Secondary wound healing and leg edema were extremely rare events (1/28) after E-IFLA. The overall complication rate was 7.1%. Complications appeared in 55.3% of the O-IFLA-cases. There were no problems related to CO2 insufflation. Local recurrence rates were identical in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: O-IFLA and E-IFLA are efficient with respect to oncologic safety. E-IFLA is technically more challenging. E-IFLA can avoid secondary wound healing and lymphatic complications. E-IFLA is a safe procedure while a reduction of CO2 pressures optimizes the safety profile. Because cancer control rates remained equivalent during an extended follow-up, oncologic durability could be confirmed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23067251     DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  9 in total

Review 1.  Early experience of robotic-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy: review of surgical outcomes relative to alternative approaches.

Authors:  Talar B Kharadjian; Surena F Matin; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  [Surgical treatment of metastatic penile cancer - what is the scientific rationale?]

Authors:  O W Hakenberg; C Protzel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Efficacy and Safety of Lateral Approach-Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (L-VEIL) over Open Inguinal Block Dissection: a Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Sandeep P Nayak; Harshwardhan Pokharkar; Jaiprakash Gurawalia; Kapil Dev; Srinivas Chanduri; M Vijayakumar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-06-14

4.  Comparative study of perioperative and survival outcomes after video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in the management of inguinal lymph nodes in carcinoma of the penis.

Authors:  Yuvaraja B Thyavihally; Preetham Dev; Santosh S Waigankar; Abhinav Pednekar; Bijal Kulkarni; Anshu Sharma; Sharad Maheshwari; Diptiman Roy; Varun Agarwal; Archan A Khandekar; Naresh D Badlani; Ashish N Asari; Neha Sanwalka
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-23

5.  Comparison of clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes between video endoscopic and open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiao Hu; Huihuang Li; Yu Cui; Peihua Liu; Xu Zhou; Longfei Liu; Hequn Chen; Jinbo Chen; Xiongbing Zu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Saphenous-sparing Ascending Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Using a Leg Approach: Surgical Technique and Perioperative and Pathological Outcomes.

Authors:  Christian D Fankhauser; Esther W C Lee; Allaudin Issa; Pedro Oliveira; Maurice Lau; Vijay Sangar; Arie Parnham
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-11-18

7.  Comparison of different surgical methods and strategies for inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer.

Authors:  Yanxiang Shao; Xu Hu; Shangqing Ren; Duwu Liao; Zhen Yang; Yang Liu; Thongher Lia; Kan Wu; Sanchao Xiong; Weixiao Yang; Shuyang Feng; Yaohui Wang; Xiang Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  A single-center comparison of our initial experiences in treating penile and urethral cancer with video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and later experiences in melanoma cases.

Authors:  A Gómez-Ferrer; A Collado; M Ramírez; J Domínguez; J Casanova; C Mir; A Wong; J L Marenco; E Nagore; V Soriano; J Rubio-Briones
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-09-26

9.  Comparison of the two routes of video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer: a systematic review and a single-center experience.

Authors:  Lixia Luan; Rui Chen; Yang Yang; Fangfang Xue; Wenying Wang
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.