G Alan Hyde1, Nathan L Jung2, Alvaro A Valle3, Syamal D Bhattacharya3, Christopher E Keel2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee College of Medicine Chattanooga, 979 East Third Street, Suite B-401, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA. alanhyde1@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, University of Tennessee College of Medicine Chattanooga, 979 East Third Street, Suite C-925, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee College of Medicine Chattanooga, 979 East Third Street, Suite B-401, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indications for superficial inguinal lymph node (ILN) dissection in melanoma include fine needle aspiration or clinically positive ILN and sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Open inguinal lymphadenectomy may be complicated by poor wound healing, deep vein thrombosis, and lymphedema. Technical considerations and case series of a novel surgical approach, robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy, are presented. METHODS: This is a case series of four robotic ILN dissections for melanoma at a tertiary care facility. Each patient had previously diagnosed melanoma by lymph node biopsy. Physician and patient jointly decided on robotic procedure after disclosure of this novel approach. Demographic, complication, pathological outcome, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and length of stay (LOS) data were collected. RESULTS: No cases were aborted due to technical difficulty. The median patient age was 44.5 years (range 22-53 years) and median BMI was 27.5 (range 20.4-40.2). Operative time range was 120-231 min and EBL from 0 to 100 mL. Median nodal count was 5.5 (range 1-14 nodes). Patient LOS ranged from 0 (discharged from post anesthesia care unit) to 96 h. There was one complication of port site cellulitis, one seroma formation, and no instances of lymphedema. To date, there have been no deaths or melanoma recurrences in this population. CONCLUSION: Recent data suggest a minimum node count of six to seven for inguinal dissection. Of our four dissections, two were above this threshold and there were minimal postoperative complications. Given our limited sample size, future focus should be on increasing the data on this approach to optimize surgical outcomes and oncologic results.
BACKGROUND: Indications for superficial inguinal lymph node (ILN) dissection in melanoma include fine needle aspiration or clinically positive ILN and sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Open inguinal lymphadenectomy may be complicated by poor wound healing, deep vein thrombosis, and lymphedema. Technical considerations and case series of a novel surgical approach, robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy, are presented. METHODS: This is a case series of four robotic ILN dissections for melanoma at a tertiary care facility. Each patient had previously diagnosed melanoma by lymph node biopsy. Physician and patient jointly decided on robotic procedure after disclosure of this novel approach. Demographic, complication, pathological outcome, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and length of stay (LOS) data were collected. RESULTS: No cases were aborted due to technical difficulty. The median patient age was 44.5 years (range 22-53 years) and median BMI was 27.5 (range 20.4-40.2). Operative time range was 120-231 min and EBL from 0 to 100 mL. Median nodal count was 5.5 (range 1-14 nodes). Patient LOS ranged from 0 (discharged from post anesthesia care unit) to 96 h. There was one complication of port site cellulitis, one seroma formation, and no instances of lymphedema. To date, there have been no deaths or melanoma recurrences in this population. CONCLUSION: Recent data suggest a minimum node count of six to seven for inguinal dissection. Of our four dissections, two were above this threshold and there were minimal postoperative complications. Given our limited sample size, future focus should be on increasing the data on this approach to optimize surgical outcomes and oncologic results.
Authors: Mark B Faries; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Robert H Andtbacka; Nicola Mozzillo; Jonathan S Zager; Tiina Jahkola; Tawnya L Bowles; Alessandro Testori; Peter D Beitsch; Harald J Hoekstra; Marc Moncrieff; Christian Ingvar; Michel W J M Wouters; Michael S Sabel; Edward A Levine; Doreen Agnese; Michael Henderson; Reinhard Dummer; Carlo R Rossi; Rogerio I Neves; Steven D Trocha; Frances Wright; David R Byrd; Maurice Matter; Eddy Hsueh; Alastair MacKenzie-Ross; Douglas B Johnson; Patrick Terheyden; Adam C Berger; Tara L Huston; Jeffrey D Wayne; B Mark Smithers; Heather B Neuman; Schlomo Schneebaum; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Charlotte E Ariyan; Darius C Desai; Lisa Jacobs; Kelly M McMasters; Anja Gesierich; Peter Hersey; Steven D Bines; John M Kane; Richard J Barth; Gregory McKinnon; Jeffrey M Farma; Erwin Schultz; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Richard A Hoefer; James M Lewis; Randall Scheri; Mark C Kelley; Omgo E Nieweg; R Dirk Noyes; Dave S B Hoon; He-Jing Wang; David A Elashoff; Robert M Elashoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lesly A Dossett; Nicholas B Castner; Julio M Pow-Sang; Andrea M Abbott; Vernon K Sondak; Amod A Sarnaik; Jonathan S Zager Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andrea M Abbott; Travis E Grotz; Natasha M Rueth; Roberto C Hernandez Irizarry; Todd M Tuttle; James W Jakub Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Christiane A Voit; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Gregor Schäfer-Hesterberg; Alfred Schoengen; Paul I M Schmitz; Wolfram Sterry; Alexander M M Eggermont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Spillane; Bernard L H Cheung; Jonathan R Stretch; Richard A Scolyer; Kerwin F Shannon; Michael J Quinn; Robyn P M Saw; William H McCarthy; John F Thompson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Elisa Francone; Simona Reina; Francesco Spagnolo; Lorenzo Di Maira; Ferdinando Cafiero; Nicola Solari Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 2.483