| Literature DB >> 35397549 |
Yongkang Ma1, Jianwei Hao2, Huaqi Yin1, Mingkai Zhu1, Bao Guan1, Chaoshuai Zhu1, Bingqi Dong1, Shiming Zhao1, Zhaohong He1, Tiejun Yang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inguinal lymphadenectomy (iLAD) is effective for penile carcinoma treatment, but usually results in many complications. This study aims to clinically evaluate the feasibility and clinical significance of a laparoscopic radical iLAD approach partly preserving great saphenous vein branches for penile carcinoma patients.Entities:
Keywords: Great saphenous vein branches; Inguinal lymphadenectomy; Laparoscope; Penile carcinoma
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35397549 PMCID: PMC8994377 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01582-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1Workflow of patient selection
Clinical characteristics of 48 patients
| Sparing group | Control group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 16 | 32 | – |
| Age, year | 54.81 ± 6.585 | 54.44 ± 5.46 | 0.835 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.94 ± 3.64 | 24.25 ± 3.60 | 0.779 |
| Smoking | |||
| Present | 5 (31.25%) | 9 (28.13%) | 1.000 |
| Absent | 11 (68.75%) | 23 (71.87%) | |
| ASA score | |||
| 1 | 12 (75%) | 23 (71.88%) | 0.762 |
| 2 | 4 (25%) | 8 (25%) | |
| 3 | 0 | 1 (3.12%) | |
| Tumor stage | |||
| T1 | 6 (37.5%) | 11 (34.38%) | 0.946 |
| T2 | 8 (50%) | 16 (50%) | |
| T3 | 2 (12.5%) | 5 (15.62%) | |
| Lymph node | |||
| N1 | 6 (37.5%) | 13 (75%) | 0.869 |
| N2 | 9 (56.25%) | 17 (75%) | |
| N3 | 1 (6.25%) | 2 (75%) | |
| Pelvic lymph node dissections | |||
| Absent | 15 (93.75%) | 30 (93.75%) | 1.000 |
| Present | 1 (6.25%) | 2 (6.25%) | |
BMI body mass index, ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists
Fig. 2The mode picture showed the sparing group which preserving the great saphenous vein, its superficial branches, superficial lateral and medial femoral veins (A) and the control group which only retaining the great saphenous vein (B)
Perioperative information
| Sparing group | Control group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time (min/side) | 66.25 ± 9.01 | 59.19 ± 8.38 | |
| Blood loss (ml/side) | 19.69 ± 12.71 | 21.28 ± 11.29 | 0.660 |
| Time for seal pressure drainage (day) | 10.13 ± 4.47 | 11.03 ± 3.42 | 0.442 |
| Postoperative hospital stay (day) | 11.19 ± 5.00 | 11.28 ± 3.69 | 0.937 |
| Clean the lymph node number (per side) | 9.56 ± 1.90 | 9.78 ± 2.18 | 0.749 |
Postoperative complications
| Sparing group | Control group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Necrosis of skin flap | 0 | 2 (6.25%) | 0.541 |
| Subcutaneous infection | 1 (6.25%) | 3 (9.37%) | 0.711 |
| lymphorrhagia | 3 (18.75%) | 5 (15.62%) | 0.654 |
| Surgical intervention for flap healing | 0 | 1 (3.13%) | 1.000 |
| Edema of lower extremity | 1 (6.25%) | 13 (40.62%) | |
| Below ankle | 1 (6.25%) | 11 (34.37%) | |
| Above ankle | 0 | 2 (6.25%) | 0.546 |
| Lymphocysts | 3 (18.75%) | 6 (18.75%) | 1.000 |
| Venous thrombosis | 2 (12.5%) | 5 (15.63%) | 0.772 |