| Literature DB >> 30676302 |
Aurus Dourado Meneses1, Pablo Aloisio Lima Mattos1, Walberto Monteiro Neiva Eulálio2, Taíla Sousa de Moura Fé3, Rodolfo Myronn de Melo Rodrigues2, Marcos Tobias-Machado4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy - VEIL - has emerged as an alternative to reduce post-surgical complications (PSC) in patients with penile cancer submitted to inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL). In some series, these PSC are observed in more than 50% of patients. The objectives of the present study are to describe the initial experience of VEIL in a Hospital in Teresina, PI, Brazil, and to analyze PSC incidence.Entities:
Keywords: Lymph Node Excision; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Penile Neoplasms
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30676302 PMCID: PMC6541140 DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Braz J Urol ISSN: 1677-5538 Impact factor: 1.541
Demographic, clinical and pathological characteristics of patients.
| Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis | 46 | 64 | 44 | 60 | 55 | 55 | 72 | 24 | 38 | 46 | 62 |
| Histologic type | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid | epidermoid |
| Pathologic staging | T2 | T2 | T2 | T3 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T2 | T3 |
| N0 | N0 | N0 | N0 | N0 | N0 | N0 | N1 | N1 | N0 | N1 | |
| M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | M0 | |
| G1 | G2 | G1 | G3 | G3 | G1 | G3 | G2 | G1 | G1 | G3 | |
| Technique | SBV | NSBV | OU + UV | NSBV | NSBV | NSBV | NSBV | NSBV | SBV | SBV | OU + UV |
| Number of positive lymph nodes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Follow up (weeks) | 83 | 136 | 135 | 23 | 111 | 180 | 2 | 117 | 59 | 62 | 148 |
| Current status | D | A | A | D | A | A | L | A | L | A | A |
SBV = simultaneous bilateral VEIL; NSBV = non-simultaneous bilateral VEIL; OU = open unilateral; UV = unilateral VEIL; D = death; A = alive; L = loss of follow-up
Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare means and proportion in reference to the data of current study.
| Variables | Current study | Romanelli P ( | Pahwa HS ( | Chaudhari R ( | Kumar V ( | Yuan JB ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 11 | 20 | 10 | 14 | 20 | 12 |
| Surgical mean time | 85 | 119 | 144 | 194 | 97 | 92 |
| P-value | Ref. |
|
|
| 0.442 | 0.64 |
| Skin complications (%) | 10 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4.2 |
| P-value | Ref. | 0.605 |
|
| 0.112 |
|
| Lymphatic complications (%) | 25 | 27.2 | 20 | 27.2 | 30 | 12.5 |
| P-value | Ref. | 0.713 | 0.345 | 0.118 | 0.067 |
|
| Intrasurgical complications | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P-value | Ref. | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mean number of dissected lymph nodes | 5.7 | 8 | 10.6 | 7.6 | 9.3 | 10.5 |
| P-value | Ref. | 0.456 |
| 0.059 |
|
|
| Recurrence | 2 in a mean follow-up of 28 months | 2 in a mean follow up of 20 months | not discussed | 0 in a mean follow-up of 48 months | 0 in a mean follow-up of 16 months | not discussed |
| P-value | Ref. | 0.901 | – | 0.623 | 0.0781 | – |
Significant. Ref.: Reference for the test.
P-value: Error probability
Figure-1Post-surgical complications following VEIL.