Case Report: The Danger of Postchemotherapy Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Nonseminomatous Testicular Carcinoma

Controversial technology: the Chunnel and the laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND)

• Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) was first introduced in 1992, initially as a staging procedure. • With advances in instrumentation and laparoscopic techniques, as well as improved understanding of laparoscopic anatomy, L-RPLND has developed to duplicate open RPLND. • Unlike the relatively rapid adoption of laparoscopy for other applications including nephrectomy and prostatectomy, L-RPLND has been slow to be universally accepted. • The limited numbers of patients requiring RPLND and technical challenges in performing the dissection have undoubtedly contributed to its delayed reception. • This review will present available data on this technique and discuss issues potentially inhibiting acceptance by traditional surgeons.

Morbidity of open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: contemporary perioperative data

OBJECTIVE

To review differences between primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (P-RPLND) and RPLND after chemotherapy (PC-RPLND) in a contemporary series of patients with testicular cancer, to validate the proposed low morbidity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who had undergone RPLND at our institution in 2001-2008 were identified and their clinical charts reviewed; in all, 190 were identified and perioperative data obtained.

RESULTS

Of the 190 patients who had RPLND, 98 (52%) and 92 (48%) had P- and PC-RPLND, respectively. Histology of the orchidectomy specimen consisted of embryonal carcinoma in 146 (76%) patients, also including lymphovascular invasion in 83 (44%). The mean (range) operative duration was 206 (110-475) min and the mean blood loss was 294 (50-7000) mL. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Mean blood loss, operative duration and hospital stay were significantly less for the P-RPLND than for PC-RPLND groups (P < 0.05). There were 18 (9%) perioperative complications in all. There were no deaths in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term morbidity of open RPLND is acceptable, and open RPLND is safe and effective at select tertiary centres. When compared with historical data, the present contemporary series shows that the operative duration, blood loss and hospital stay have improved, with few complications. These contemporary data should be considered when comparing laparoscopic with open RPLND.

Postchemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in nonseminomatous germ-cell tumor

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) remains essential in the management of metastatic testicular carcinoma and represents a surgical challenge. We determined to assess the feasibility and complications of laparoscopic RPLND in patients who were treated with induction chemotherapy for testis cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data that was prospectively recorded from 26 patients who underwent laparoscopic RPLND postplatinum-based chemotherapy between 2000 and 2006. The surgical technique consisted of excision of the residual mass plus unilateral template dissection. A transperitoneal technique was used in 24 patients, and an extraperitoneal approach was used in 2 patients. Operative details, perioperative morbidity data, and histologic findings were assessed for the study.

RESULTS

Primary pathologic evaluation of the testis tumor revealed pure embryonal carcinoma in 4 patients, teratocarcinoma in 1 patient, and mixed nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors in 21 patients. All patients had residual disease in the retroperitoneum on a preoperative CT scan, with a median size of 3.4 cm (range 2-6 cm). Procedures in three (11.5%) patients were converted to open surgery. Median operative time was 183 minutes (range 120-260 min). Median estimated blood loss was 400 mL (range 100-600 mL), and blood transfusion was necessary in one patient. Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 2-6 d). Median number of lymph nodes obtained on final histologic examination was 7 (range 4-13). Perioperative complications included eight lymphovascular and one intestinal. At a mean follow-up of 27 months (range 14-36 mos), no recurrences have been observed and no patient was lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Postchemotherapy laparoscopic RPLND is technically feasible. The most frequent complications and causes of conversion are lymphovascular.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: does it still have a role in the management of clinical stage I nonseminomatous testis cancer? A European perspective

CONTEXT

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) is not recommended as standard tool in European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To update the role of L-RPLND in patients with clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT) compared to open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search from 1992 to 2008 was performed in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The largest series from each group was considered. Comparative analysis was based on raw data of series published in 2000 and later.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Results of >800 patients treated by L-RPLND reported in 34 articles were analyzed. Lymph node dissection (LND) was based on modified templates, removing an average of 16 (5-36) lymph nodes. At experienced centres, complication rates were 15.6% (9.4-25.7), including 2% (0-5) retrograde ejaculation and 1.7% (0-6) reintervention. Operating room times are longer compared to O-RPLND (204 vs 186min). Five publications with a follow-up of 63 (36-89) mo include 557 patients. One hundred twenty-six of 140 (90%) patients with positive nodes (25%, range: 17-38) received adjuvant chemotherapy, resulting in a local relapse rate of 1.4% (0.7-2.3) with no in-field recurrence; rate of distant relapses was 3.3% (1.8-4.6), including one port-site metastasis; and rate of biochemical failure was 0.9% (0.7-2.3). Two of 14 patients with positive nodes (pN1) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy relapsed, both 8 mo after surgery, and were salvaged by chemotherapy. Compared with O-RPLND, there was no difference in relapse rates, percentage of patients receiving chemotherapy (29% vs 31%), chemotherapy (CTx) cycles per cohort (0.6), rate of salvage surgery (1.2% vs 1.5%), and patients with no evidence of disease (NED; 100% vs 99.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

L-RPLND offers similar staging accuracy and long-term outcome to O-RPLND. In a late series of experienced L-RPLND centres, there was a trend towards fewer complications. L-RPLND represents a valuable tool for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Further studies must focus on the curative potential of the procedure in pathologic stage IIA.