Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ 4 - Hội Y học Giới tính Việt Nam 30/05/2024

34. VIDEO ENDOSCOPIC INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY IN FIRST 14 PATIENTS WITH PENILE SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA AT BINH DAN HOSPITAL

Tran Doan Thien Quoc1,2,3,4, Dang Quang Tuan3,4, Nguyen Cong Minh1,2,3,4, Mai Ba Tien Dung1,2,3,4
1 Trường Đại học Y khoa Phạm Ngọc Thạch
2 Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine
3 Bệnh viện Bình Dân Tp.HCM
4 Binh Dan Hospital
Corresponding author: quoctran88@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD4.1183
18 Views
16 Downloads
Keywords
Penile cancer, video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy.
Abstract

Background: Inguinal lymph node involvement is an important prognostic factor in penile cancer. Inguinal lymph node dissection allows staging and treatment of inguinal nodal disease. However, it causes morbidity and is associated with complications such as lymphocele, skin loss, and infection.

Aims: To evaluate the results of video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma at Binh Dan hospital.

Materials and Methods: It is a cohort study, 14 patients underwent VEIL in 2022. Data analyzed included mean operative time, mean lymph node yield, complications, recurrent rate and survivl rate.

Results: The mean age of patients was 50.8 years (range: 44–58 years). Mean operative time for VEIL was 203,3 min (130–250 min). Mean lymph node yield was 8,3(range: 6-12 nodes). No intraoperative complication was experienced during the series. We noted that 1 case has surgical emphysema on 1 groin (7,1%), 2 cases have localized lymphocele (14,2%). After 1 year, no recurrent case andh survival rate is 100%.

Conclusions: VEIL is a safe and feasible technique in patients with penile carcinoma who require radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. It allows the removal of inguinal lymph nodes and reduces surgical morbidity substantially.

References
[1]
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE et al., Cancer Google Scholar
[2]
Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7- Google Scholar
[3]
doi:10.3322/caac.21654. Google Scholar
[4]
Sharma P, Zargar H, Spiess PE. Surgical Google Scholar
[5]
Advances in Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: Google Scholar
[6]
Optimizing Treatment Outcomes. Urologic Google Scholar
[7]
Clinics of North America. 2016;43(4):457-468. Google Scholar
[8]
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2016.06.007. Google Scholar
[9]
Dorff TB, Ballas LK, Schuckman AK. Current Google Scholar
[10]
Management Strategy for Penile Cancer Google Scholar
[11]
and Future Directions. Curr Oncol Rep. Google Scholar
[12]
;19(8):54. doi:10.1007/s11912-017-0615-4. Google Scholar
[13]
Hakenberg OW, Dräger DL, Erbersdobler A Google Scholar
[14]
et al., The Diagnosis and Treatment of Penile Google Scholar
[15]
Cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(39):646- Google Scholar
[16]
doi:10.3238/arztebl.2018.0646. Google Scholar
[17]
Koifman L, Hampl D, Koifman N et al., Google Scholar
[18]
Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy Google Scholar
[19]
for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, Google Scholar
[20]
early complications and late outcomes. J Google Scholar
[21]
Urol. 2013;190(6):2086-2092. doi:10.1016/j. Google Scholar
[22]
juro.2013.06.016. Google Scholar
[23]
Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland Google Scholar
[24]
NM et al., Early wound complications after Google Scholar
[25]
inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a Google Scholar
[26]
historical cohort study and risk-factor analysis. Google Scholar
[27]
Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):486-492. doi:10.1016/j. Google Scholar
[28]
eururo.2013.02.037. Google Scholar
[29]
Kumar V, Sethia KK. Prospective study Google Scholar
[30]
comparing video-endoscopic radical inguinal Google Scholar
[31]
lymph node dissection (VEILND) with open Google Scholar
[32]
radical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over Google Scholar
[33]
an 8-year period. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):530-534. Google Scholar
[34]
doi:10.1111/bju.13660. Google Scholar
[35]
Yadav SS, Tomar V, Bhattar R et al., Video Google Scholar
[36]
Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy vs Google Scholar
[37]
Open Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Carcinoma Google Scholar
[38]
Penis: Expanding Role and Comparison Google Scholar
[39]
of Outcomes. Urology. 2018;113:79-84. Google Scholar
[40]
doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.007 Google Scholar
[41]
Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA. Google Scholar
[42]
Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy Google Scholar
[43]
for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Google Scholar
[44]
Anderson Cancer Center Experience. J Urol. Google Scholar
[45]
;167(4):1638-1642. Google Scholar
[46]
Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management Google Scholar
[47]
of penile cancer - PubMed. Accessed April Google Scholar
[48]
, 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. Google Scholar
[49]
gov/19264390/ Google Scholar
[50]
Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F et al., Morbidity Google Scholar
[51]
of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive Google Scholar
[52]
penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004;45(6):761- Google Scholar
[53]
; discussion 765-766. doi:10.1016/j. Google Scholar
[54]
eururo.2003.12.003. Google Scholar
[55]
Catalona WJ. Modified inguinal Google Scholar
[56]
lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis Google Scholar
[57]
with preservation of saphenous veins: technique Google Scholar
[58]
and preliminary results. J Urol. 1988;140(2):306- Google Scholar
[59]
doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41589-8. Google Scholar
[60]
Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy Google Scholar
[61]
(VEIL)--a prospective critical perioperative Google Scholar
[62]
assessment of feasibility and morbidity with Google Scholar
[63]
points of technique in penile carcinoma - Google Scholar
[64]
PubMed. Accessed April 30, 2024. https:// Google Scholar
[65]
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23432959/ Google Scholar
[66]
Hu J, Li H, Cui Y et al., Comparison of Google Scholar
[67]
clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes Google Scholar
[68]
between video endoscopic and open inguinal Google Scholar
[69]
lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: A Google Scholar
[70]
systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine Google Scholar
[71]
(Baltimore). 2019;98(22):e15862. doi:10.1097/ Google Scholar
[72]
MD.0000000000015862. Google Scholar
[73]
Kandasamy SG, Chandran KR, Pooleri GK. Google Scholar
[74]
Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node Google Scholar
[75]
management of carcinoma of penis: A review. Google Scholar
[76]
Indian J Urol. 2022;38(1):15-21. doi:10.4103/ Google Scholar
[77]
iju.iju_387_21. Google Scholar
[78]
Li J, Zhu Y, Zhang SL et al., Organ-sparing Google Scholar
[79]
surgery for penile cancer: complications and Google Scholar
[80]
outcomes. Urology. 2011;78(5):1121-1124. Google Scholar
[81]
doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.006. Google Scholar