Cargando…

Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report

INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for patients with penile cancer and inguinal lymph node metastases. We describe the performance of the robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy technique without repositioning the robot in a patient with penile carcinoma and high ri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sotelo, Rene, Cabrera, Marino, Carmona, Oswaldo, de Andrade, Robert, Martin, Oscar, Fernandez, Golena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cancer Intelligence 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101945
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2013.356
_version_ 1782286283676057600
author Sotelo, Rene
Cabrera, Marino
Carmona, Oswaldo
de Andrade, Robert
Martin, Oscar
Fernandez, Golena
author_facet Sotelo, Rene
Cabrera, Marino
Carmona, Oswaldo
de Andrade, Robert
Martin, Oscar
Fernandez, Golena
author_sort Sotelo, Rene
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for patients with penile cancer and inguinal lymph node metastases. We describe the performance of the robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy technique without repositioning the robot in a patient with penile carcinoma and high risk for nodal metastases and no palpable lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 64-year-old male patient was diagnosed with penile cancer (TNM: T3 N 0 M 0) and underwent a total penectomy with perineal urethrostomy. We performed a robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy four weeks after the penectomy. RESULTS: The entire procedure was performed with the robot-assisted technique. The operative time, median estimated blood loss, and hospital stay was 360 min, 100 ml (50 ml in the right side and 150 ml in the left side), and three days, respectively. Metastatic nodes were present in both inguinal regions, with a yield of 19 lymph nodes on the right and 14 on the left. The patient presented with a left-side lymphocele that was drained at follow-up. No other complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy secondary to penile cancer is feasible, safe, and provides a good performance. Prospective studies are required to include a larger number of patients and long-term monitoring to assess the results of this procedure in comparison with open and laparoscopic techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3788168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Cancer Intelligence
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37881682013-10-07 Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report Sotelo, Rene Cabrera, Marino Carmona, Oswaldo de Andrade, Robert Martin, Oscar Fernandez, Golena Ecancermedicalscience Case Report INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for patients with penile cancer and inguinal lymph node metastases. We describe the performance of the robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy technique without repositioning the robot in a patient with penile carcinoma and high risk for nodal metastases and no palpable lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 64-year-old male patient was diagnosed with penile cancer (TNM: T3 N 0 M 0) and underwent a total penectomy with perineal urethrostomy. We performed a robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy four weeks after the penectomy. RESULTS: The entire procedure was performed with the robot-assisted technique. The operative time, median estimated blood loss, and hospital stay was 360 min, 100 ml (50 ml in the right side and 150 ml in the left side), and three days, respectively. Metastatic nodes were present in both inguinal regions, with a yield of 19 lymph nodes on the right and 14 on the left. The patient presented with a left-side lymphocele that was drained at follow-up. No other complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy secondary to penile cancer is feasible, safe, and provides a good performance. Prospective studies are required to include a larger number of patients and long-term monitoring to assess the results of this procedure in comparison with open and laparoscopic techniques. Cancer Intelligence 2013-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3788168/ /pubmed/24101945 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2013.356 Text en © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Report
Sotelo, Rene
Cabrera, Marino
Carmona, Oswaldo
de Andrade, Robert
Martin, Oscar
Fernandez, Golena
Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title_full Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title_fullStr Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title_full_unstemmed Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title_short Robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
title_sort robotic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, development of a technique without robot repositioning: a case report
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101945
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2013.356
work_keys_str_mv AT sotelorene roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport
AT cabreramarino roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport
AT carmonaoswaldo roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport
AT deandraderobert roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport
AT martinoscar roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport
AT fernandezgolena roboticbilateralinguinallymphadenectomyinpenilecancerdevelopmentofatechniquewithoutrobotrepositioningacasereport