POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS AND LOWER LIMB LYMPHEDEMA AFTER VIDEO ENDOSCOPIC INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR PENILE CANCER
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: (1) Describe and stratify early postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo grade, distinguishing subclinical from symptomatic lymphocele; (2) Evaluate lower limb lymphedema at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively; (3) Analyze the association between lymphedema and pN status.
Methods: A prospective descriptive case series of 38 penile cancer patients who underwent bilateral VEIL at Binh Dan Hospital (from May 2023 to June 2025). Complications were classified by Clavien-Dindo; lymphocele was stratified into subclinical (ultrasound-detected, asymptomatic) and symptomatic (requiring medical intervention). Lymphedema was assessed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively; association with pN analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.
Results: All 38 bilateral VEIL procedures were completed successfully (100%). Mean total operative time was 158.1 ± 25.6 min; estimated blood loss was 82.5 ± 34.1 mL. Great saphenous vein was preserved in 100% per side. Total lymphocele detection by systematic ultrasonography was 92.1% (35/38 patients); of these, 71.1% (27/38 patients) were subclinical and 21.1% (8/38 patients) were symptomatic. Wound infection: 5.2%; no skin necrosis or deep vein thrombosis (0%). Clavien-Dindo: grade 0: 7.9%; grade I: 71.1%; grade II: 18.4%; grade IIIa: 2.6%. Patient-reported lower-limb lymphedema was identified in 10.5% at 12 months based on clinical assessment; the rate was significantly higher in pN-positive versus pN0 patients (37.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.035).
Conclusion: VEIL demonstrated low major complication rates (grade ≥ III: 2.6%), no skin necrosis or deep vein thrombosis. The symptomatic lymphocele rate (21.1%) aligns with recent meta-analyses (15-40%). Lymphedema was acceptable (10.5%) due to successful saphenous vein preservation and was significantly associated with pN-positive status.
Article Details
Keywords
Penile cancer, VEIL, complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, Clavien-Dindo.
References
[2] Gunia S, Koch S, May M et al. Robotic-assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) and video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) versus open inguinal lymph-node dissection (OILND) in carcinoma of penis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol, 2022, 40 (3): 109.e1-109.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.010.
[3] Lohia N, Nazeer T, Chava S et al. Long-term oncological and surgical outcomes after video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in patients with penile cancer. Int Braz J Urol, 2023, 49 (5): 580-589. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0065.
[4] Tan Y.G, Zhu Y, Aziz N.A et al. Comparing the perioperative and oncological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel), 2025, 17 (18): 3035. doi: 10.3390/cancers17183035.
[5] Suartz C.V et al. Comparing open and video endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BJU International, 2025, 135 (4): 567-576. doi: 10.1111/bju.16661
[6] Greco I, Fernandez-Pello S et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive procedures for surgical inguinal nodal staging in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol Focus, 2024, 10 (4): 567-580. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.11.010.
[7] Muller S, Nitschke K, Nuber A et al. A single-center comparison of initial experiences in treating penile and urethral cancer with video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL). Front Surg, 2022, 9: 870857. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.870857