PURPOSE: Describe the outcomes and complications of patients who underwent standard pelvic lymphadenectomy (SPLND) and extended PLND (EPLND), or who did not undergo PLND (non-PLND) at the time of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal data of 492 RALPs performed by a single surgeon (Kane) over a 5-year period. Patients are subdivided into three treatment groups: 54 EPLND; 231 SPLND; and 207 non-PLND. Indications for EPLND include Gleason score ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL, and higher D'Amico risk group. Patient demographics, perioperative complications, and short-term oncologic outcomes are compared. RESULTS: Patients who underwent EPLND had higher-risk prostate cancer as evidenced by higher mean PSA (8.5 ng/mL), biopsy Gleason sum (≥ 8) (57.7 %), and D'Amico risk group (75.9 %), compared to SPLND and/or non-PLND groups (p ≤ 0.001). The EPLND total lymph node yield was similar compared to SPLND (20 vs. 18; p = 0.070). When the EPLND (n = 41) and SPLND (n = 57) were examined among only high-risk patients, the lymph node (IQR) yields [20 (14-29) vs. 17 (12-23)] and the proportion of positive nodes [29.3 % (12/41) vs. 12.3 % (7/57)] differed significantly (p = 0.048 and p = 0.042, respectively). Complication rates for all groups were similar and lymphocele formation was 5 %; 2.5 % were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PLND can be performed with nodal yield comparable to open or laparoscopic PLND. Robotic EPLND improves nodal yield and the proportion of high-risk patients with nodal metastases recognized. Robotic PLND is associated with an approximately 5 % lymphocele rate. There is no difference in complications between EPLND and SPLND.
PURPOSE: Describe the outcomes and complications of patients who underwent standard pelvic lymphadenectomy (SPLND) and extended PLND (EPLND), or who did not undergo PLND (non-PLND) at the time of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal data of 492 RALPs performed by a single surgeon (Kane) over a 5-year period. Patients are subdivided into three treatment groups: 54 EPLND; 231 SPLND; and 207 non-PLND. Indications for EPLND include Gleason score ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL, and higher D'Amico risk group. Patient demographics, perioperative complications, and short-term oncologic outcomes are compared. RESULTS:Patients who underwent EPLND had higher-risk prostate cancer as evidenced by higher mean PSA (8.5 ng/mL), biopsy Gleason sum (≥ 8) (57.7 %), and D'Amico risk group (75.9 %), compared to SPLND and/or non-PLND groups (p ≤ 0.001). The EPLND total lymph node yield was similar compared to SPLND (20 vs. 18; p = 0.070). When the EPLND (n = 41) and SPLND (n = 57) were examined among only high-risk patients, the lymph node (IQR) yields [20 (14-29) vs. 17 (12-23)] and the proportion of positive nodes [29.3 % (12/41) vs. 12.3 % (7/57)] differed significantly (p = 0.048 and p = 0.042, respectively). Complication rates for all groups were similar and lymphocele formation was 5 %; 2.5 % were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PLND can be performed with nodal yield comparable to open or laparoscopic PLND. Robotic EPLND improves nodal yield and the proportion of high-risk patients with nodal metastases recognized. Robotic PLND is associated with an approximately 5 % lymphocele rate. There is no difference in complications between EPLND and SPLND.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Salonia; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Gallina; Luigi Filippo Da Pozzo; Marco Roscigno; Giuseppe Zanni; Luc Valiquette; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David S Yee; Darren J Katz; Guilherme Godoy; Lucas Nogueira; Kian Tai Chong; Matthew Kaag; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Urology Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 2.649
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