Radical Videoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomies: A Matched Pair Analysis

Robotic or open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection as staging procedures for clinically node negative high risk penile cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a cohort of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing robotic assisted inguinal lymph node dissection (RAIL) compared to patients undergoing open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection (OSILND).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing RAIL at MDACC from 2013-2019. We sought to compare this to a contemporary open cohort of clinically node negative patients treated from 1999 to 2019 at MDACC and Moffit Cancer Center (MCC) with an OSILND. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohorts. Comparison analysis between operative variables was performed using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival endpoints.

RESULTS

There were 24 patients in the RAIL cohort, and 35 in the OSILND cohort. Among the surgical variables, operative time (348.5 minutes vs. 239.0 minutes, P < 0.01) and the duration of operative drain (37 vs. 22 days P = 0.017) were both significantly longer in the RAIL cohort. Complication incidences were similar for both cohorts (34.3% for OSILND vs. 33.3% for RAIL), with wound complications making up 33% of all complications for RAIL and 31% of complications for OSILND. No inguinal recurrences were noted in either cohort. The median follow-up was 40 months for RAIL and 33 months for OSILND.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed similar complication rates and surgical variable outcomes in our analysis apart from operative time and operative drain duration. Oncological outcomes were similar between the two cohorts. RAIL was a reliable staging and potentially therapeutic procedure among clinically node negative patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma with comparable outcomes to an OSILND cohort.

The Acute Complications After Surgery for Penile Carcinoma and Strategies for Their Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the contemporary rates of 30-day complications after surgery for penile cancer and to discuss the currently used preventative and therapeutic practices aimed at mitigation of these postoperative adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed, and studies reporting on the contemporary rates, nature, or management of acute complications following primary penile surgery or inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer were abstracted. Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE libraries were used to retrieve the articles published between January 1984 and December 2021 (n = 170 articles). Ultimately, 38 articles were included. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day (acute) postoperative complications, stratified by those associated with treatment of the primary penile lesion and those with inguinal lymph node dissection. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken. Special attention was paid to studies reporting management strategies for these complications.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive review revealed that the quality of existing studies reporting on complications is poor and the risk of bias is high. Within these studies, the rates of acute complications following primary penile surgery and inguinal lymph node dissection ranged between 0% and 29.4% and 6% and 90%, respectively. More than 50% of these complications were wound related. Over the past two decades, several studies have reported on improved surgical techniques and protocolized postsurgical care pathways. Although the newer techniques have been associated with improved outcomes, the absolute rates of complications have remained high even in the most contemporary series. Therefore, there is an urgent need for health care providers and stakeholders to reach consensus regarding preoperative workup and medical optimization goals, stage appropriate therapies, and postoperative care pathways, as has been done for other malignancies associated with high morbidity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Penile cancer is a disease of the elderly, and surgical management of the primary lesion or the groins is associated with a high rate of complications. Most complications are wound related. Meticulous surgical technique and careful postoperative monitoring with early intervention are keys to mitigating surgery-related morbidity. However, equally important is dissemination and adoption of these principles by all health care workers universally.

Single-position robotic assisted laparoscopic anterograde bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: A retrospective controlled study

OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this study was to compare the surgical strategy and clinical outcomes of single-position robotic assisted laparoscopic anterograde bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

21 patients were diagnosis with squamous cell carcinoma and identified from March 2010 to December 2020 in our department. Ten patients were received single-position robotic assisted laparoscopic anterograde bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy (robot-assisted group), and eleven patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (laparoscopic group). Preoperative physical examination and related auxiliary examinations all indicated bilateral inguinal lymph node enlargement, and there was no distant metastasis patient presented during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

There was no intraoperative conversion to open surgery. The operation time under robot-assisted group was 104 ± 13 min which was significantly shorter than laparoscopic group (136 ± 11 min, P < 0.01). The average number of lymph nodes was 22.2 ± 4.5 of both sides in robot-assisted group, which was statistically different compared with laparoscopic group (15.4 ± 3.1, p < 0.01). Moreover, there was significant difference of hospitalization cost between two groups (CNY 67429 ± 5586 vs 28582 ± 3774, P < 0.01). No differences in operation time, blood loss, and length of stay were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-position robotic assisted laparoscopic anterograde bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy reveals with shorter operating time, and better surgical effect, Moreover, we prefer to no change the trocars layout and mechanical arm system during the operation.

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

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the peri-operative outcomes, complications, and oncological outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL)/Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) with Open Inguinal Lymph-Node Dissection (OILND) for management of inguinal lymph-nodes in carcinoma of the penis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in January 2021 using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Data from human studies comparing RAVEIL/VEIL vs. OILND in carcinoma of penis published in English was extracted and analyzed by two independent authors.

RESULTS

Two Randomised Controlled Trials and 6 cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. RAVEIL/VEIL group exhibited increased operative time (Mean Difference [MD] = 15.28 [14.19; 16.38], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = -1.06 [-1.14; -0.98], P < 0.001), and decreased duration of drainage (MD = -2.82 [-3.21; -2.43], P < 0.001), wound infection (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.08; 0.27], P < 0.001), skin necrosis (OR = 0.12 [0.05; 0.28], P < 0.001), lymphedema (OR = 0.41 [0.24; 0.72], P = 0.002), and major complications (OR = 0.11 [0.05; 0.24], P < 0.001) as compared to OILND group. Recurrence rate and number of deaths were comparable in both the groups. RAVEIL/VEIL groups showed slightly larger lymph-node yield (MD = 0.44 [0.18; 0.70], P < 0.001) as compared to OILND group.

CONCLUSION

RAVEIL/VEIL has lesser skin complications, lymphedema, and better lymph-node yield as compared to OILND. It is comparable in terms of lymphocele and recurrence. It has lesser hospital stay and duration of drainage but owing to heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are required to determine long-term oncological outcomes like overall survival and disease-specific survival.

VEILND (Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection) with Florescence Indocyanine Green (ICG): A Novel Technique to Identify the Sentinel Lymph Node in Men with ≥pT1G2 and cN0 Penile Cancer

Introduction

In men with ≥pT1G2 cN0, penile cancer lymph node sampling is recommended with either (1) scintigraphically labelled Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy (DSLNB) or (2) modified inguinal lymph node dissection (MILND). Although DSLNB is a minimally invasive technique, the false negative rate can be about 10%, and a further operative procedure is required if positive. Open MILND is a diagnostic and therapeutic option but has a much higher morbidity. A potential compromise is the technique of LND-VEILND (video endoscopic inguinal LND) that can be combined with ICG florescence marking of sentinel lymph node (SLN). We present a pilot study of ICG-VEILND. The aim was to validate the applicability of a combination ICG marking of SLN in VEILND (to increase probability to excise SLN) and determine the optimal timing and dosage of ICG.

Materials and Methods

15 patients with VEILND (24 groins) underwent ICG application with fluorescence near-infrared (NIR 803⟶830 nm) detection. ICG is applied subcutaneously adjacent to the penile cancer or residual stump of penis or suprapubic region (in a history of total penectomy: 5 cases). The dose of 1.25 mg (ICG) was applied in one case with invisible SLN, the dose of 2.5 mg in 1 mL in 8 cases, and 5 mg in the remaining 6 patients (10 groins).

Results

Failure of marking SLN with ICG occurred in 25.0% of cases (6/24): due to application of 1.25 mg ICG, extensive metastasis to SLN, in 4 cases, the cause was unknown (16.7%, 4/24). In the short follow-up period, no local recurrence was seen in the pN0 ICG group.

Conclusion

Fluorescence infrared image with ICG dye increases the probability of removal of the SLN during VEILND. The dose of ICG is 2.5 (5) mg diluted in 1 ml and can be applied preoperatively even in the suprapubic region in men with a history of total penectomy, with an unexplainable failure of ICG marking in 16.7%.

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

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.