Cargando…

Vascular and Urinary Tract Anatomic Variants Relevant to Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Women with Gynecological Cancers

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Para-aortic lymphadenectomy is an essential part of gynecologic oncologic surgical treatment. The surgeon should be aware of the complex usual anatomy and its common variants. Vascular and urinary tract anatomic variants are common and may be found in one out of five patients during...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kovačević, Nina, Hočevar, Marko, Vivod, Gregor, Merlo, Sebastjan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37894326
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15204959
Descripción
Sumario:SIMPLE SUMMARY: Para-aortic lymphadenectomy is an essential part of gynecologic oncologic surgical treatment. The surgeon should be aware of the complex usual anatomy and its common variants. Vascular and urinary tract anatomic variants are common and may be found in one out of five patients during para-aortic lymphadenectomy, so the surgeon should always consider them. The most common vascular variant is the accessory renal artery, which is usually not detected on preoperative imaging. An abdominal CT should be interpreted jointly by a radiologist and a surgical gynecologist whenever possible. For optimal intraoperative management, it is strongly recommended that precise dissection be performed to facilitate exposure and provide valuable insight for potential vascular repair. ABSTRACT: Background: Para-aortic lymphadenectomy is an essential part of gynecologic oncologic surgical treatment. The surgeon should be aware of the complex usual anatomy and its common variants. Methods: Between January 2021 and May 2023, 58 women underwent para-aortic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic malignancies. Results: Vascular and urinary tract anatomic variants were retrospectively reviewed from the prospective institutional database and results were compared with preoperative contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Of these 58 women, 47 women had no vascular or urinary tract variants. One woman had a double inferior vena cava, two patients were found to have a retro-aortic left renal vein, four had accessory renal arteries, two had a double left ureter, one had a ptotic kidney in the iliac fossa, and one patient had bilateral kidney malrotation. Anatomic variants in the preoperative CT were described by a radiologist in only two patients, and additional vascular and urinary tract variants were found incidentally at the time of surgery. Conclusions: Acknowledgment of vascular and urinary tract variants is helpful for the surgeon to establish an appropriate surgical plan and to avoid iatrogenic surgical trauma.