Literature DB >> 33484414

Comparative study of perioperative and survival outcomes after video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in the management of inguinal lymph nodes in carcinoma of the penis.

Yuvaraja B Thyavihally1, Preetham Dev2, Santosh S Waigankar2, Abhinav Pednekar2, Bijal Kulkarni3, Anshu Sharma4, Sharad Maheshwari5, Diptiman Roy6, Varun Agarwal2, Archan A Khandekar7, Naresh D Badlani7, Ashish N Asari7, Neha Sanwalka8.   

Abstract

Open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) is the gold standard in the management of lymph nodes in carcinoma penis; however, video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is performed in some centers. Our primary objective is to compare perioperative and survival outcomes in patients undergoing VEIL with O-ILND, as very few studies have reported long-term survival outcomes till date. We analyzed patients who underwent O-ILND and VEIL (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) from January 2009 to January 2020 in our institute for carcinoma of the penis. Patient details, perioperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression and survival outcomes by log-rank and Cox regression methods. We analyzed 79 patients (32 O-ILND, 47 VEIL) with a median follow-up of 51 (IQR 25.5-75.5) and 42 months (IQR 21-62). Wound complications were common in O-ILND group (65.6%) compared to VEIL group (27.7%) (p = 0.001), predominantly skin flap necrosis in 14 groins (23.73%) after O-ILND and none after VEIL. Median overall survival was 80 and 88 months (p = 0.840) with five-year survival of 65% and 66.8% (p = 0.636) and five-year DSS of 76.6% and 73.9% (p = 0.96) in O-ILND and VEIL, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that grade and pathological node status were significant (HR-2.650, p = 0.040; HR-3.218, p = 0.024) factors for survival. The retrospective nature of the study design is the limitation. Management of inguinal lymph nodes in carcinoma penis by VEIL is safe, associated with lesser wound-related complications, and equivalent survival outcomes compared to O-ILND. It should be considered as an alternative option for inguinal lymph node dissection.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd. part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carcinoma penis; Inguinal lymph node dissection; Recurrence; Survival; VEIL

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33484414     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01189-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  23 in total

1.  Radical excision of the inguinal and iliac lymph glands; a study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations.

Authors:  E H DASELER; B J ANSON; A F REIMANN
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1948-12

2.  Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

Authors:  Richard Bevan-Thomas; Joel W Slaton; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  The role of lymphadenectomy in penile cancer.

Authors:  Ricardo F Sánchez-Ortiz; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 4.  Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications.

Authors:  Philippe E Spiess; Mike S Hernandez; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes.

Authors:  Leandro Koifman; Daniel Hampl; Nelson Koifman; Antonio José Vides; Antonio Augusto Ornellas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients.

Authors:  Joost A P Leijte; Peter Kirrander; Ninja Antonini; Torgny Windahl; Simon Horenblas
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer.

Authors:  Chris Protzel; Antonio Alcaraz; Simon Horenblas; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Alexandre Zlotta; Oliver W Hakenberg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 8.  Current issues in the management of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.

Authors:  Samira Syed; Tony Y Eng; Charles R Thomas; Ian M Thompson; Geoffrey R Weiss
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Risk factors for short- and long-term complications after groin surgery in vulvar cancer.

Authors:  F Hinten; L C G van den Einden; J C M Hendriks; A G J van der Zee; J Bulten; L F A G Massuger; H P van de Nieuwenhof; J A de Hullu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Management of clinically node-negative groin in patients with penile cancer.

Authors:  Devayani Niyogi; Jarin Noronha; Mahendra Pal; Ganesh Bakshi; Gagan Prakash
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review.

Authors:  Shreedhar Gurunathan Kandasamy; Kosur Ravi Chandran; Ginil Kumar Pooleri
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2022-01-01

2.  Saphenous-sparing Ascending Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Using a Leg Approach: Surgical Technique and Perioperative and Pathological Outcomes.

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

3.  Nursing of Vulvar Cancer Radical Operation Combined with Laparoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection.

Authors:  Simei Huang; Feifei Qiu
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 1.621

4.  Clinical Application of Noninflating Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection.

Authors:  Jinhu Chen; Lei Yan; Guangyue Luo; Weihua Fang; Chaozhao Liang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.809

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.