Cargando…

Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review

INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endosco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan, Chandran, Kosur Ravi, Pooleri, Ginil Kumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796758/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35136290
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_387_21
_version_ 1784641396933656576
author Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan
Chandran, Kosur Ravi
Pooleri, Ginil Kumar
author_facet Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan
Chandran, Kosur Ravi
Pooleri, Ginil Kumar
author_sort Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic-assisted VEIL (R-VEIL). In this review, we aim to describe the techniques, case selection, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes of VEIL and R-VEIL and to compare it with open ILND. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the articles for VEIL and R-VEIL. Using PRISMA guidelines, literature search yielded 3783 articles, of which 32 full-text articles relevant to the topic were selected and reviewed, after consensus from authors. RESULTS: After the first description of VEIL, various modifications in port placements and approaches were described. Several studies have shown, VEIL and R VEIL are safe and feasible in both node-negative and node-positive Ca penis patients. Compared to open ILND, VEIL had fewer wound infections and skin necrosis, minimal blood loss, shorter mean hospital stays, and reduced duration of drain kept. There is no difference in mean lymph node yield and recurrence rates between open ILND, VEIL, R-VEIL. CONCLUSION: VEIL and R-VEIL are safe and have comparable oncological outcomes with open ILND.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8796758
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87967582022-02-07 Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan Chandran, Kosur Ravi Pooleri, Ginil Kumar Indian J Urol Review Article INTRODUCTION: Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic-assisted VEIL (R-VEIL). In this review, we aim to describe the techniques, case selection, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes of VEIL and R-VEIL and to compare it with open ILND. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the articles for VEIL and R-VEIL. Using PRISMA guidelines, literature search yielded 3783 articles, of which 32 full-text articles relevant to the topic were selected and reviewed, after consensus from authors. RESULTS: After the first description of VEIL, various modifications in port placements and approaches were described. Several studies have shown, VEIL and R VEIL are safe and feasible in both node-negative and node-positive Ca penis patients. Compared to open ILND, VEIL had fewer wound infections and skin necrosis, minimal blood loss, shorter mean hospital stays, and reduced duration of drain kept. There is no difference in mean lymph node yield and recurrence rates between open ILND, VEIL, R-VEIL. CONCLUSION: VEIL and R-VEIL are safe and have comparable oncological outcomes with open ILND. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8796758/ /pubmed/35136290 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_387_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Indian Journal of Urology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
Kandasamy, Shreedhar Gurunathan
Chandran, Kosur Ravi
Pooleri, Ginil Kumar
Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title_full Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title_fullStr Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title_full_unstemmed Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title_short Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review
title_sort minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: a review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796758/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35136290
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_387_21
work_keys_str_mv AT kandasamyshreedhargurunathan minimalinvasiveapproachesinlymphnodemanagementofcarcinomaofpenisareview
AT chandrankosurravi minimalinvasiveapproachesinlymphnodemanagementofcarcinomaofpenisareview
AT pooleriginilkumar minimalinvasiveapproachesinlymphnodemanagementofcarcinomaofpenisareview