Background: Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is a minimally invasive technique that gives superior surgical outcomes than open inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL) for treating lymph node metastasis in penile, vulvar, and skin cancers. This study compared surgical outcomes obtained with two different approaches of VEIL, standard VEIL and lateral VEIL (L-VEIL), in cancer patients. Methods: Sixty-two patients who underwent standard VEIL (n = 15) or L-VEIL (n = 47) for treatment of lymph node metastasis were evaluated retrospectively from three centers in Brazil, Egypt, and India. Primary endpoint analyzed was conversion rate to open IL in the two groups, and the secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss, nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and postoperative complications. Results: The conversion rate to open IL was higher in L-VEIL compared with VEIL group (2% vs. 0%). Significantly lesser blood loss was reported with L-VEIL compared with VEIL (mean difference: 3.63 mL; P = .01). Postoperative drain duration was significantly lower with L-VEIL (-4.34 days; P < .05) than VEIL. The L-VEIL group had a higher number of lymph nodes without infiltration (mean difference: -0.48; P = .02). Operative time, nodal yield, nodal positivity, and hospitalization duration were similar in both groups. Postoperative complications were higher in the L-VEIL versus VEIL group (35 vs. 11 cases). Lymphedema events were significantly higher with L-VEIL in comparison with VEIL (38.8% vs. 16.7%; P = .03). Among patients with penile cancer, no significant difference was observed in outcomes obtained with VEIL and L-VEIL. Conclusion: As L-VEIL and VEIL approaches lead to comparable surgical outcomes, surgeons may choose either of these as per their convenience.
Background: Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is a minimally invasive technique that gives superior surgical outcomes than open inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL) for treating lymph node metastasis in penile, vulvar, and skin cancers. This study compared surgical outcomes obtained with two different approaches of VEIL, standard VEIL and lateral VEIL (L-VEIL), in cancerpatients. Methods: Sixty-two patients who underwent standard VEIL (n = 15) or L-VEIL (n = 47) for treatment of lymph node metastasis were evaluated retrospectively from three centers in Brazil, Egypt, and India. Primary endpoint analyzed was conversion rate to open IL in the two groups, and the secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss, nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and postoperative complications. Results: The conversion rate to open IL was higher in L-VEIL compared with VEIL group (2% vs. 0%). Significantly lesser blood loss was reported with L-VEIL compared with VEIL (mean difference: 3.63 mL; P = .01). Postoperative drain duration was significantly lower with L-VEIL (-4.34 days; P < .05) than VEIL. The L-VEIL group had a higher number of lymph nodes without infiltration (mean difference: -0.48; P = .02). Operative time, nodal yield, nodal positivity, and hospitalization duration were similar in both groups. Postoperative complications were higher in the L-VEIL versus VEIL group (35 vs. 11 cases). Lymphedema events were significantly higher with L-VEIL in comparison with VEIL (38.8% vs. 16.7%; P = .03). Among patients with penile cancer, no significant difference was observed in outcomes obtained with VEIL and L-VEIL. Conclusion: As L-VEIL and VEIL approaches lead to comparable surgical outcomes, surgeons may choose either of these as per their convenience.
Entities:
Keywords:
inguinal lymphadenectomy; melanoma; penile cancer; video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy; vulvar cancer
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