“Bottoms-up” minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review

Submitted: May 6, 2024
Accepted: June 6, 2024
Published: October 2, 2024
Abstract Views: 100
PDF: 44
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Purpose: Open inguinal lymph node dissection (OILND) plays a crucial role in penile cancer management, but in order to improve patient outcomes, minimally-invasive (MILND) approaches were developed. Our “bottoms-up” MILND is a novel endoscopic technique, changing the way the sequence of dissection is performed. This study aims to compare our approach to the current standard of OILND in terms of oncologic and perioperative outcomes.
Materials and methods: In our database, from 2016 to 2023, 12 patients underwent OILND and 16 had a “bottoms-up” MILND, which is performed with a three port configuration, starting the dissection under the fascia lata, dissecting the femoral vessels in the most distal part of the femoral fossa, followed by dissection of the proximal and superficial lymph nodes at the top of thefemoral triangle.
Results: For MILND, median operation time per groin was shorter (58 vs 64 minutes, p=0.34), patients presented shorter hospital stays (10 vs 18 days, p=0.32) and fewer days with drains (14 vs 24 days, p=0.01). Median lymph node yield per groin was higher for MILND (10 vs 9 nodes, p=0.7), but OILND had a higher median of positive lymph nodes (4 vs 3 nodes, p=0.63). MILND patients experienced a lower incidence of major complications (33% vs 58%, p=0.007).
Conclusions: We have proved that our technique of MILND is not inferior to the current standard and we believe that it can further improve patient outcomes with a safer, simplified and easily reproducible approach.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Montes Cardona CE, García-Perdomo HA. Incidence of penile cancer worldwide: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2017;41:e117.
Leijte JAP, Kirrander P, Antonini N, et al. Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol. 2008;54:161-8.
Alnajjar HM, Lam W, Bolgeri M, Rees RW, et al. Treatment of carcinoma in situ of the glans penis with topical chemotherapy agents. Eur Urol. 2012;62:923–8.
Brouwer OR, Tagawa ST, Albersen M, et al. EAU-ASCO Collaborative Guidelines Penile Cancer. 2023. Arnhem, EAU Guidelines Office. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/archive/penile-cancer
Smith JA, Howards SS, Preminger GM, Dmochowski RR. Hinman’s atlas of urologic surgery revised reprint. Amsterdam, Elsevier Health Sciences; 2019.
Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, et al. Early wound complications after inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a historical cohort study and risk-factor analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64:486-92.
Sotelo R, Sánchez-Salas R, Carmona O, et al. Endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma. J Endourol. 2007;21:364-7.
Patel KN, Salunke A, Bakshi G, et al. Robotic-assisted video- endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) and video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) versus open inguinal lymph-node dissection (OILND) in carcinoma of penis: Comparison of perioperative outcomes, complications and oncological outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol. 2022;40:112.e11–112.e22.
Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Sayegh AS, et al. Assessment and reporting of perioperative adverse events and complications in patients undergoing inguinal lymphadenectomy for melanoma, vulvar cancer, and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2023;47:962-974.
Hu J, Li H, Cui Y, et al. Comparison of clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes between video endoscopic and open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2020;38:1301-1311.
Thyavihally YB, Dev P, Waigankar SS, et al. 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. J Robotic Surg. 2021;15:695-703.
Sachdeva A, McGuinness L, Zapala Ł, et al. Management of lymph node-positive penile cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2024;85:257-273.
Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, et al. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses [Internet]. Chapter 5, Economic Analysis. Ottawa, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2011.
Zou ZJ, Liu ZH, Tang LY, et al. Radiocolloid-based dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in penile cancer with clinically negative inguinal lymph node: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48:1951-1962.
Fallara G, Pozzi E, Cakir OO, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy for penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:500-512.
Kumar V, Kumar PR, Juette A, et al. Improved outcome in penile cancer with radiologically enhanced stratification protocol for lymph node staging procedures: A study in 316 inguinal basins with a mean follow-up of 5 years. BMC Urol. 2023;23:137.

How to Cite

Schițcu, V.-H., Munteanu, V. C., Borz, M. B., Cojocaru, I., Labo, S. V., & Tise, A.-I. (2024). “Bottoms-up” minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12643