J A Moody1, R F Ali1, A C Carbone2, S Singh2, J T Hardwicke3. 1. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK. 3. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK; Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK. Electronic address: j.hardwicke@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The complications reported after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for melanoma is highly variable in the worldwide literature; the overall complication rate varies between 1.8% and 29.9%. With heterogeneous reporting of morbidity data, no 'average' complication rates of this procedure have been reported. This systematic review aims to determine the complications rates associated with SLNB. METHODS: A systematic review of English-language literature from 2000 to 2015, which reported morbidity information about SLNB for melanoma, was performed. The methodological quality of the included studies was performed using the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS) instrument and Detsky score. Pooled proportions of specific post-operative complications were constructed using a random effects statistical model, and subgroups including lymph node basin and continent of origin of the study were compared. RESULTS: After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 21 articles progressed to the final analysis. 9047 patients were included. The overall complication rate was 11.3% (95% CI: 8.1-15.0). The incidence of infection was 2.9% (95% CI 1.5-4.6); seroma 5.1% (95% CI: 2.5-8.6); haematoma 0.5% (95% CI: 0.3-0.9) lymphoedema 1.3% (95% CI: 0.5-2.6) and nerve injury 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.6). There was no statistically significant difference in morbidity between the sites of SLNB or between continents. DISCUSSION: This study provides information about the incidence of complications after SLNB. It can be used to counsel patients about the procedure and it sets a benchmark against which surgeons can audit their practice. Crown
PURPOSE: The complications reported after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for melanoma is highly variable in the worldwide literature; the overall complication rate varies between 1.8% and 29.9%. With heterogeneous reporting of morbidity data, no 'average' complication rates of this procedure have been reported. This systematic review aims to determine the complications rates associated with SLNB. METHODS: A systematic review of English-language literature from 2000 to 2015, which reported morbidity information about SLNB for melanoma, was performed. The methodological quality of the included studies was performed using the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS) instrument and Detsky score. Pooled proportions of specific post-operative complications were constructed using a random effects statistical model, and subgroups including lymph node basin and continent of origin of the study were compared. RESULTS: After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 21 articles progressed to the final analysis. 9047 patients were included. The overall complication rate was 11.3% (95% CI: 8.1-15.0). The incidence of infection was 2.9% (95% CI 1.5-4.6); seroma 5.1% (95% CI: 2.5-8.6); haematoma 0.5% (95% CI: 0.3-0.9) lymphoedema 1.3% (95% CI: 0.5-2.6) and nerve injury 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.6). There was no statistically significant difference in morbidity between the sites of SLNB or between continents. DISCUSSION: This study provides information about the incidence of complications after SLNB. It can be used to counsel patients about the procedure and it sets a benchmark against which surgeons can audit their practice. Crown
Authors: Matthew Fox; Marc Brown; Nicholas Golda; Dori Goldberg; Christopher Miller; Melissa Pugliano-Mauro; Chrysalyne Schmults; Thuzar Shin; Thomas Stasko; Yaohui G Xu; Kishwer Nehal Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Ferdinand Toberer; Holger A Haenssle; Martin Laimer; Monika Heinzel-Gutenbrunner; Alexander Enk; Wolfgang Hartschuh; Peter Helmbold; Heinz Kutzner Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Domenico Bellomo; Suzette M Arias-Mejias; Chandru Ramana; Joel B Heim; Enrica Quattrocchi; Sindhuja Sominidi-Damodaran; Alina G Bridges; Julia S Lehman; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; Mark R Pittelkow; David J DiCaudo; Barbara A Pockaj; Jason C Sluzevich; Mark A Cappel; Sanjay P Bagaria; Charles Perniciaro; Félicia J Tjien-Fooh; Martin H van Vliet; Jvalini Dwarkasing; Alexander Meves Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-04-14
Authors: Daniëlle Verver; Charlotte M C Oude Ophuis; Lisa B Koppert; Cécile de Monyé; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Senada Koljenović; Annemarie Bruining; Bernies van der Hiel; Sylvia Ter Meulen; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Cornelis Verhoef; Dirk J Grünhagen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alyss V Robinson; Claire Keeble; Michelle C I Lo; Owen Thornton; Howard Peach; Marc D S Moncrieff; Donald J Dewar; Ryckie G Wade Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: E E A P Mulder; J T Dwarkasing; D Tempel; A van der Spek; L Bosman; D Verver; A L Mooyaart; A A M van der Veldt; C Verhoef; T E C Nijsten; D J Grunhagen; L M Hollestein Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 9.302