Yu Cui1, Hequn Chen1, Longfei Liu1, Zhi Chen1, Jinbo Chen1, Lin Qi1, Xiongbing Zu2. 1. Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410000, Hunan, China. 2. Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410000, Hunan, China. zuxbxy@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of saphenous vein sparing during bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy (BIL) for penile carcinoma patients. METHODS: Between May 2011 and May 2013, 23 patients with penile carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic prophylactic BIL were included. All patients were randomized to receive the laparoscopic prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy with saphenous vein sparing on one limb and saphenous vein ligated on the other limb. Short-term and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, harvested number of nodes and incidence of positive nodes. Saphenous vein preservation technique significantly reduced the morbidity of acute lymphedema and lower limb lymphedema after BIL. There was no difference between the two groups in acute cellulitis, seroma, wound breakdown, deep venous thrombosis and cellulitis. One patient developed a local recurrence at the 9 months after lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that laparoscopic prophylactic BIL with saphenous vein sparing is beneficial in patients with penile carcinoma by reducing the incidence of short-term and long-term postoperative complications.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of saphenous vein sparing during bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy (BIL) for penile carcinomapatients. METHODS: Between May 2011 and May 2013, 23 patients with penile carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic prophylactic BIL were included. All patients were randomized to receive the laparoscopic prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy with saphenous vein sparing on one limb and saphenous vein ligated on the other limb. Short-term and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, harvested number of nodes and incidence of positive nodes. Saphenous vein preservation technique significantly reduced the morbidity of acute lymphedema and lower limb lymphedema after BIL. There was no difference between the two groups in acute cellulitis, seroma, wound breakdown, deep venous thrombosis and cellulitis. One patient developed a local recurrence at the 9 months after lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that laparoscopic prophylactic BIL with saphenous vein sparing is beneficial in patients with penile carcinoma by reducing the incidence of short-term and long-term postoperative complications.
Authors: Oliver W Hakenberg; Eva M Compérat; Suks Minhas; Andrea Necchi; Chris Protzel; Nick Watkin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 20.096
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