medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2022, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2022; 82 (5)

Endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: oncological and functional outcomes and long-term morbidity

Astigueta-Pérez J, Medina-Holguín J, Flores G, Abad-Licham M

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page:
PDF size: 388.29 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To present our experience in Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (IEL) in the management of penile cancer with risk factors for metastasis and clinically negative inguinal nodes (cN0); to evaluate the results obtained in the long term and with those described in the literature review, proposing “ideal objectives” for this minimally invasive technique.
Methodology: Between 2012 and 2016, patients diagnosed with penile cancer who met the criteria for pathology greater than pT1G2 and cN0 inguinal nodes underwent IEL. We recorded pre-surgical, perioperative, pathological and follow-up data. We analyze results and discuss the evidence described in the literature review.
Results: In 15 patients with a mean age of 59 years, 23 IELs were performed (08 bilateral and 07 unilateral). The average operative time was 126 minutes; all cases with bleeding less than 50cc. The mean number of lymph nodes dissected per inguinal region was 10.4; in 3 patients, 1 metastatic node was found. There were no Clavien-Dindo III or IV complications. During the mean follow-up period of 89 months (range 72-120), no patient had disease recurrence or progression.
Conclusions: Long-term evaluation in this group of patients has shown to be an effective, safe and reproducible alternative with optimal results in cancer control, prompt functional recovery and minimum intra and postoperative complications. The various publications coincide in affirming that it has advantages compared to the conventional one, fulfilling these three “ideal objectives” that we qualify as a trifecta, like the concept used in other urooncological surgeries.


REFERENCES

  1. Hakenberg O. Guidelines on Penile Cancer.European Association of Urology; 2022.

  2. Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Molina WR,Zambon JP, Medina JA, Forseto PH, et al.Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy(VEIL): initial case report and comparisonwith open radical procedure. Arch EspUrol. 2006;59(8):849–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.4321/s0004-06142006000800020

  3. Sotelo R, Sánchez-Salas R, Carmona O, GarciaA, Mariano M, Neiva G, et al. Endoscopiclymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma. JEndourol. 2007;21(4):364–7; discussion 367.doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9971

  4. Astigueta JCP, Abad-Licham M, Silva E, Yan E,Álvarez H, Agreda F, et al. Endoscopic inguinallymphadenectomy in penile cancer: case reportand literature review. Ecancermedicalscience.2015;9:576. doi: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2015.576

  5. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A.Classification of surgical complications: anew proposal with evaluation in a cohort of

  6. 6336 patients and results of a survey. AnnSurg. 2004;240(2):205–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae6. Pow-Sang MR, Ferreira U, Pow-Sang JM, NardiAC, Destefano V. Epidemiology and naturalhistory of penile cancer. Urology. 2010;76(2Suppl 1): S2-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.003

  7. Pettaway CA, Crook JM, Pagliaro LC. Tumorsof the Penis. In: Partin AWM, Peters CA,Kavoussi LRM, Dmochowski RRM, Wein AJ,editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology 12th Edition.Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020. p. 1742–75.

  8. Sotelo R, Medina LG, Machado MT. InguinalNode Dissection. In: Partin AWM, Peters CA,Kavoussi LRM, Dmochowski RRM, Wein AJ,editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology 12th Edition.Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020.. p. 1790–803.

  9. Hu J, Li H, Cui Y, Liu P, Zhou X, Liu L, etal. Comparison of clinical feasibility andoncological outcomes between video endoscopicand open inguinal lymphadenectomyfor penile cancer. Medicine (Baltimore).2019;98(22):e15862. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015862

  10. Cui Y, Chen H, Liu L, Chen Z, Chen J, Qi L, etal. Saphenous vein sparing during laparoscopicbilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy forpenile carcinoma patients. Int Urol Nephrol.2016;48(3):363–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-1182-y

  11. Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JAP, Yap T, GalleeMPW, Corbishley C, et al. Prognostic factorsfor occult inguinal lymph node involvement inpenile carcinoma and assessment of the highriskEAU subgroup: a two-institution analysisof 342 clinically node-negative patients. EurUrol. 2010;58(5):742–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.015

  12. Kumar V, Sethia KK. Prospective studycomparing video-endoscopic radical inguinallymph node dissection (VEILND) with openradical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over an8-year period. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):530–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13660

  13. Muñoz Guillermo V, Rosino Sánchez A,Rivero Guerra Á, Barceló Bayonas I, PardoMartínez A, Jiménez Peralta D, et al. Videoendoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy inpenile cancer: Systematic review. Arch Esp Urol.2019;72(10):992–9.

  14. Patel KN, Salunke A, Bakshi G, Jayaprakash D,Pandya SJ. Robotic-Assisted Video-EndoscopicInguinal Lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) andVideo-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy(VEIL) versus Open Inguinal Lymph-NodeDissection (OILND) in carcinoma of penis:Comparison of perioperative outcomes,complications and oncological outcomes. Asystematic review and meta-analysis. UrolOncol. 2022;40(3):112.e11-112.e22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.010

  15. Josephson DY, Jacobsohn KM, Link BA, WilsonTG. Robotic-assisted Endoscopic InguinalLymphadenectomy. Urology. 2009;73(1):167–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.060

  16. Singh A, Jaipuria J, Goel A, Shah S, Bhardwaj R,Baidya S, et al. Comparing Outcomes of Roboticand Open Inguinal Lymph Node Dissectionin Patients with Carcinoma of the Penis. JUrol. 2018;199(6):1518–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.061

  17. Tamhankar AS, Ojha SP, Ahluwalia P, GautamG. Technical caveats in robot assisted videoendoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection- evolution of a modified technique. Int BrazJ Urol. 2021;47(1):216–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0298

  18. Tobias-Machado M, Correa WF, Reis LO,Starling ES, de Castro Neves O, Juliano RV,et al. Single-site video endoscopic inguinallymphadenectomy: initial report. J Endourol.2011;25(4):607–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0269

  19. Yuan P, Zhao C, Liu Z, Ou Z, He W, Cai Y, etal. Comparative Study of Video EndoscopicInguinal Lymphadenectomy Through aHypogastric vs Leg Subcutaneous Approach forPenile Cancer. J Endourol. 2018;32(1):66–72.doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0455

  20. Subirá-Ríos D, Moncada I, Caño-Velasco J,González-García J, Polanco-Pujol L, Subirá-Rios J, et al. Minimally Invasive LaparoscopicTechnique for Lymph Node Dissection inPenile Cancer: The Pelvic and Inguinal Single-Site Approach: PISA Technique. Urology.2021;153:351–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.017

  21. Nayak SP, Pokharkar H, Gurawalia J, DevK, Chanduri S, Vijayakumar M. Efficacy andSafety of Lateral Approach-Video EndoscopicInguinal Lymphadenectomy (L-VEIL) overOpen Inguinal Block Dissection: a RetrospectiveStudy. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019;10(3):555–62.doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-019-00951-4

  22. Herrel L, Butterworth R, Jafri S, Ying C,Delman K, Kooby D, et al. Bilateral endoscopicinguinofemoral lymphadenectomy usingsimultaneous carbon dioxide insufflation: aninitial report of a novel approach. The Canadianjournal of urology. 2012;19(3).

  23. Shanjin Ma, Keying Zhang, Ruixiao Li, JiazhenLu, Tao Wu, Zhiwei Liu, et al. Bilateral inguinallymphadenectomy using simultaneous doublelaparoscopies for penile cancer: A retrospectivestudy. Urol Oncol. 2022 Mar;40(3):112.e1-112.e9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.12.022

  24. Chen J, Yan L, Luo G, Fang W, Liang C. ClinicalApplication of Noninflating Video-EndoscopicInguinal Lymph Node Dissection. Comput MathMethods Med. 2022;2022:8259990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8259990

  25. Das MK, Pandey A, Mandal S, Nayak P,Kumaraswamy S. Modified Video EndoscopicInguinal Lymphadenectomy: a Deep-FirstApproach. Urology. 2022;168:234–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.005

  26. Russell CM, Salami SS, Niemann A, WeizerAZ, Tomlins SA, Morgan TM, et al. MinimallyInvasive Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in theManagement of Penile Carcinoma. Urology.2017;106:113–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.022

  27. Yadav SS, Tomar V, Bhattar R, Jha AK,Priyadarshi S. Video Endoscopic InguinalLymphadenectomy vs Open InguinalLymphadenectomy for Carcinoma Penis:Expanding Role and Comparison of Outcomes.Urology. 2018;113:79–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.007

  28. Shao Y, Hu X, Ren S, Liao D, Yang Z, Liu Y, et al.Comparison of different surgical methods andstrategies for inguinal lymph node dissectionin patients with penile cancer. Sci Rep.2022;12(1):2560. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06494-z




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com