Uwe Wollina1, Dana Langner2, Jacqueline Schönlebe3, Carmen Tanner4, Martin Fuchs4, Andreas Nowak5. 1. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Technical University of Dresden, Friedrichstrasse 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany. wollina-uw@khdf.de. 2. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Technical University of Dresden, Friedrichstrasse 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany. 3. Institute of Pathology "Georg Schmorl", Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 4. Clinic for Nuclear Medicine Fuchs & Tanner, Dresden, Germany. 5. Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Medicine, Emergency Medicine & Pain Management, Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is an established technique for melanoma staging. OBJECTIVE: There are no studies available comparing different techniques for the removal of sentinel lymph nodes related to safety and postsurgical complication rate. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center trial. We analyzed the postsurgical complications in 201 consecutive melanoma patients with ligature of lymphatic vessels by sutures (group A) and in 91 consecutive patients with occlusion of lymphatic vessels by bipolar tweezers (group B). We paid particular attention to complications related to disturbed lymphatic function, such as lymph edema, lymphatic fistula, and seroma. RESULTS: The complication rate was 5.5 % (group A) and 9.6 % (group B) which is in the range of other published trials (p = 0.89). There was no increase of complications related to lymphatic vessels in group B, although the rate of patients with more than two sentinel lymph nodes removed was 5‑times higher than in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of sentinel lymph nodes with the use of bipolar tweezers does not increase the risk of postsurgical complications, and in particular it is not associated with a higher rate of complications related to lymphatic vessel dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is an established technique for melanoma staging. OBJECTIVE: There are no studies available comparing different techniques for the removal of sentinel lymph nodes related to safety and postsurgical complication rate. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center trial. We analyzed the postsurgical complications in 201 consecutive melanomapatients with ligature of lymphatic vessels by sutures (group A) and in 91 consecutive patients with occlusion of lymphatic vessels by bipolar tweezers (group B). We paid particular attention to complications related to disturbed lymphatic function, such as lymph edema, lymphatic fistula, and seroma. RESULTS: The complication rate was 5.5 % (group A) and 9.6 % (group B) which is in the range of other published trials (p = 0.89). There was no increase of complications related to lymphatic vessels in group B, although the rate of patients with more than two sentinel lymph nodes removed was 5‑times higher than in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of sentinel lymph nodes with the use of bipolar tweezers does not increase the risk of postsurgical complications, and in particular it is not associated with a higher rate of complications related to lymphatic vessel dysfunction.
Authors: Annette Pflugfelder; Corinna Kochs; Andreas Blum; Marcus Capellaro; Christina Czeschik; Therese Dettenborn; Dorothee Dill; Edgar Dippel; Thomas Eigentler; Petra Feyer; Markus Follmann; Bernhard Frerich; Maria-Katharina Ganten; Jan Gärtner; Ralf Gutzmer; Jessica Hassel; Axel Hauschild; Peter Hohenberger; Jutta Hübner; Martin Kaatz; Ulrich R Kleeberg; Oliver Kölbl; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann; Albrecht Krause-Bergmann; Peter Kurschat; Ulrike Leiter; Hartmut Link; Carmen Loquai; Christoph Löser; Andreas Mackensen; Friedegund Meier; Peter Mohr; Matthias Möhrle; Dorothee Nashan; Sven Reske; Christian Rose; Christian Sander; Imke Satzger; Meinhard Schiller; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Gerhard Strittmatter; Cord Sunderkötter; Lothar Swoboda; Uwe Trefzer; Raymond Voltz; Dirk Vordermark; Michael Weichenthal; Andreas Werner; Simone Wesselmann; Ansgar J Weyergraf; Wolfgang Wick; Claus Garbe; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: J Dtsch Dermatol Ges Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.584
Authors: Milap G Rughani; Marc C Swan; Titus S Adams; Mark R Middleton; Roger N Ramcharan; Andy Pay; Jeremy F Birch; David J Coleman; Oliver C Cassell Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Augustinus P T van der Ploeg; Lauren E Haydu; Andrew J Spillane; Michael J Quinn; Robyn Pm Saw; Kerwin F Shannon; Jonathan R Stretch; Roger F Uren; Richard A Scolyer; John F Thompson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harold J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Christopher A Puleo; Brendon J Coventry; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; B Mark Smithers; Eberhard Paul; William G Kraybill; J Gregory McKinnon; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Mark B Faries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles M Balch; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; John F Thompson; Michael B Atkins; David R Byrd; Antonio C Buzaid; Alistair J Cochran; Daniel G Coit; Shouluan Ding; Alexander M Eggermont; Keith T Flaherty; Phyllis A Gimotty; John M Kirkwood; Kelly M McMasters; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Merrick I Ross; Arthur J Sober; Vernon K Sondak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian White; Jane K Mills; Brian Diggs; Jeanine Fortino Hima; Michelle C Ellis; John T Vetto Journal: Am Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Marco Burroni; Rosamaria Corona; Giordana Dell'Eva; Francesco Sera; Riccardo Bono; Pietro Puddu; Roberto Perotti; Franco Nobile; Lucio Andreassi; Pietro Rubegni Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531