Cargando…

Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To review the role of robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) in the management of penile cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding RAIL series up until August 2019 was performed using the keyword “robotic”, “inguinal lymph node dissection”...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodrigues, Gilberto José, Guglielmetti, Giuliano Betoni, Orvieto, Marcelo, Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh, Patel, Vipul R., Coelho, Rafael Ferreira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33569269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.08.001
_version_ 1783646738781831168
author Rodrigues, Gilberto José
Guglielmetti, Giuliano Betoni
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael Ferreira
author_facet Rodrigues, Gilberto José
Guglielmetti, Giuliano Betoni
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael Ferreira
author_sort Rodrigues, Gilberto José
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To review the role of robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) in the management of penile cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding RAIL series up until August 2019 was performed using the keyword “robotic”, “inguinal lymph node dissection”, and “penile cancer”. Weighted mean was calculated in the largest series for all outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor. RESULTS: We identified 23 articles, of note the three largest series that included 102, 27, and 20 RAIL in 51, 14, and 10 patients, respectively. Saphenous vein was spared in 88.93% of RAIL cases in these series and node yield was 11.42 per groin; 35.28% of patients had positive pathological nodes. The weighted mean of operative time was 87.98 min per RAIL and the estimated blood loss was 37.08 mL per patient. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.29 days and the drain was kept in place for 17.02 days; the major complication rate was only 5.31% in these series. The mean follow-up was 33.46 months with a recurrence-free survival of 96.33%. CONCLUSION: The literature regarding RAIL describes promising results, although it has shorter follow-up and higher costs when compared to historically series from the open approach. Initials series reported lower cutaneous complications compared to conventional approach, without compromising oncological outcomes. However, long-term results and larger trials are crucial to validate those findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7859461
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78594612021-02-09 Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes Rodrigues, Gilberto José Guglielmetti, Giuliano Betoni Orvieto, Marcelo Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh Patel, Vipul R. Coelho, Rafael Ferreira Asian J Urol Review OBJECTIVE: To review the role of robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) in the management of penile cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding RAIL series up until August 2019 was performed using the keyword “robotic”, “inguinal lymph node dissection”, and “penile cancer”. Weighted mean was calculated in the largest series for all outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor. RESULTS: We identified 23 articles, of note the three largest series that included 102, 27, and 20 RAIL in 51, 14, and 10 patients, respectively. Saphenous vein was spared in 88.93% of RAIL cases in these series and node yield was 11.42 per groin; 35.28% of patients had positive pathological nodes. The weighted mean of operative time was 87.98 min per RAIL and the estimated blood loss was 37.08 mL per patient. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.29 days and the drain was kept in place for 17.02 days; the major complication rate was only 5.31% in these series. The mean follow-up was 33.46 months with a recurrence-free survival of 96.33%. CONCLUSION: The literature regarding RAIL describes promising results, although it has shorter follow-up and higher costs when compared to historically series from the open approach. Initials series reported lower cutaneous complications compared to conventional approach, without compromising oncological outcomes. However, long-term results and larger trials are crucial to validate those findings. Second Military Medical University 2021-01 2020-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7859461/ /pubmed/33569269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.08.001 Text en © 2021 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Rodrigues, Gilberto José
Guglielmetti, Giuliano Betoni
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael Ferreira
Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title_full Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title_fullStr Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title_short Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes
title_sort robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: a review of current outcomes
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33569269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.08.001
work_keys_str_mv AT rodriguesgilbertojose robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes
AT guglielmettigiulianobetoni robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes
AT orvietomarcelo robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes
AT seetharambhatkultheramesh robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes
AT patelvipulr robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes
AT coelhorafaelferreira robotassistedendoscopicinguinallymphadenectomyareviewofcurrentoutcomes