Laparoscopic Versus Open Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection: a Cost Analysis:

Open versus laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: assessing adequacy of dissection in a porcine model

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) is emerging as a viable alternative to traditional open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND). Despite numerous reports confirming clinical oncologic equivalency between the two approaches, however, concerns still remain over the adequacy of laparoscopic dissection. We therefore sought to compare the completeness of dissection between O-RPLND and L-RPLND in a porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fourteen domestic swine were divided into two equivalent groups. Both groups underwent bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, approximating templates used in human dissection. In one group, the procedure was performed through an open midline incision, while the other group underwent completely laparoscopic dissection. Tissue was independently analyzed by a pathologist, who recorded lymph node yield based on microscopic evaluation.

RESULTS

All animals in the L-RPLND group underwent successful procedures, without the need for conversion. Two open procedures were aborted because of hemorrhage. Mean lymph node yield from O-RPLND was 32, while the mean yield for L-RPLND was 29. This difference was not statistically significant (P=0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

In the porcine model, L-RPLND is capable of providing a quality of dissection equivalent to that of O-RPLND, in terms of absolute lymph node yield on microscopic examination. The applicability of this data to human patients, however, may be limited by significant anatomic differences between the human and the pig. Further prospective comparison in human patients is critically needed.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Nonseminomatous Testicular Cancer

PURPOSE

We describe our initial experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous testicular cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2002 and December 2004, 10 patients with testicular tumor were operated on, 6 on the right side and 4 on the left side. Eight patients were in clinical stage I, one patient was in clinical stage IIA, and one patient was in clinical stage IIB disease. Depending on the tumor site, a 6-7 cm mid-lower or -upper laparotomy was done, the HandPort (Smith and Nephew, Andover, MA) was placed in the abdominal wall, and the left hand of the surgeon was inserted into the abdomen. Four laparoscopic ports were also inserted. The ascending or descending colon was mobilized completely. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes were dissected and removed according to the modification of Weissbach and colleagues.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 258 min (range, 150-432 min). One patient required re-operation because of postoperative bleeding. The average postoperative hospital stay was 3.5 (range, 3-10) days. Patients with stage IIA or IIB disease on histopathology received 2-3 courses of combined chemotherapy. Antegrade ejaculation was preserved in all patients. During follow-up that ranged from 9 to 36 months, there was no local recurrence or distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Hand assistance makes the laparoscopic operation simpler, faster, and safer. A 6-7 cm muscle-splitting incision should be advantageous for patients compared to the xyphopubic laparotomy of the open procedure. To our knowledge this is the first report on hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.

Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph-Node Dissection with the Waterjet Is Technically Feasible and Safe in Testis-Cancer Patient

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The acceptance of open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for stage I and II nonseminomatous testicular cancer has decreased because of the intraoperative and postoperative morbidity of the procedure. Laparoscopic RPLND is a minimally invasive and safe alternative for low-stage germ-cell tumors. It is, however, technically demanding and should therefore be performed only in experienced centers. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the waterjet technique for laparoscopic RPLND.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 18 patients with clinical stage I testis cancer (group A) and 7 patients who had received chemotherapy for stage II disease (group B) underwent laparoscopic RPLND at our institution. The procedure was performed identically to the open approach using the modified template according to Weissbach and associates. The waterjet was used for removal of lymphatic tissue from the aorta and the vena cava, as well as from the sympathetic trunk.

RESULTS

The operation was completed in all patients without conversion to open surgery. The mean operating time was 232 +/- 48 minutes. The waterjet was able to remove lymphatic tissue easily and atraumatically. At pressures of 20 bar, the lymph-node capsule remained completely intact, thus avoiding tumor-cell spread. Antegrade ejaculation could be preserved in all patients, who, to date, show no evidence of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The waterjet allows the safe and complete removal of lymphatic tissue, leaving vulnerable anatomic structures intact. It can decrease the learning curve of laparoscopic RPLND and contribute to better acceptance of this procedure.

Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph-Node Dissection in the Management of Clinical Stage I and II Testicular Cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection (RPLND) has been advocated for and utilized in the management of testicular cancer. In this overview, we present our technique and results in comparison with the worldwide experience with laparoscopic RPLND in the management of clinical stage I and II cancers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over the last 13 years, 162 patients with testicular cancer clinical stage I (N = 103) or II (N = 43 IIB, 16 IIC) underwent laparoscopic RPLND. All intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated, as well as the worldwide experience with the procedure. With a mean follow-up of 62 months (range 6-113 months) for clinical stage I and 53 months (range 10-89 months) for clinical stage II, oncologic efficiency was evaluated.

RESULTS

The procedure was feasible even after chemotherapy, with only three conversions to open RPLND in clinical stage I. The mean operative time was 217, 216, and 281 minutes for clinical stages I, IIB, and IIC, respectively. The mean blood loss was 144 mL and 165 mL for clinical stage I and II, respectively. The hospital stays were 3.6 and 3.8 days, respectively. During follow-up, we had two retroperitoneal relapses (1.2%) and four distant relapses (2.5%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RPLND has demonstrated its surgical and oncologic efficacy. The morbidity and the complication rate are low. Recurrence rates are comparable to those of open surgery. Laparoscopic RPLND is safe, with less postoperative morbidity, quicker convalescence, better cosmetic results, and a diagnostic accuracy equal that of the open technique.