Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ9-Hội Y học Giới tính 29/07/2026

EVALUATION OF SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF VIDEO-ENDOSCOPIC INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY WITH GREAT SAPHENOUS VEIN PRESERVATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PENILE CANCER AT VIET DUC UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Lai Hoang Lam1,2, Nguyen Huu Thao1,2,3,4, Nguyen Quang3,4,5,6, Nguyen Tien Dung3,4,5,6, Luu Quang Long3,4,5,6, Le Van Long3,4, Cao Dac Tuan3,4
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 Trường Đại Học Y Hà Nội
3 Viet Duc University Hospital
4 Bệnh viện Hữu Nghị Việt Đức
5 School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
6 Trường Đại học Y dược, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD9.5799
22 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the safety, oncological efficacy, and complication-reducing capability of video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods: A case series study was conducted on 38 patients who underwent video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation at Viet Duc University Hospital between March 2022 and March 2025. Evaluated parameters included perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications (graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification), disease-free survival, and inguinal recurrence-free survival. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.

Results: The study cohort comprised 38 patients with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.1 years. The mean overall operative time was 136.1 ± 35.1 minutes. The mean inguinal lymph node yield was 16.9 ± 5.6 nodes. The flap-preserving technique was associated with excellent surgical outcomes, achieving a 0% rate of both surgical site infection and skin flap necrosis. The overall complication rate was 18.4%, with a postoperative seroma rate of 7.9%. Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, the 2-year disease-free survival and inguinal recurrence-free survival rates were 89% and 97%, respectively. Correlation analysis using a 12-node cutoff revealed no significant differences in disease-free survival (p = 0.362) and inguinal recurrence-free survival (p = 0.637) between patients with < 12 nodes and those with ≥ 12 nodes during the follow-up period.

Conclusions: Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation is a safe, feasible, and oncologically highly effective procedure. This technique eliminates the risk of surgical site skin necrosis, significantly minimizes lower limb lymphedema, and ensures an optimal lymph node yield alongside durable local disease control.

References
[1]
European Association of Urology. EAU-ASCO Guidelines on penile cancer 2026. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office, 2026. Accessed March 4, 2026. Google Scholar
[2]
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: penile cancer, version 1.2026. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2026. Accessed March 4, 2026. Google Scholar
[3]
Tobias-Machado M, Ornellas A.A, Hidaka A.K et al. Long-term surgical and oncological 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 Google Scholar
[4]
Alqudrah F, Passarelli R, Sykes J, Islam R, Chua K, Ghodoussipour S. Video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): oncological and surgical benefits compared to open inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND). J Mens Health, 2024, 20 (7): 20-25. doi: 10.22514/jomh.2024.106 Google Scholar
[5]
Salazar-Messias I.M, Sotelo R, Subirá-Ríos D et al. Techniques, outcomes, and complications of minimally invasive inguinal lymphadenectomy in cancer of the penis: an international clinical review. AME Med J, 2023, 8: 24. doi: 10.21037/amj-22-68 Google Scholar
[6]
Nguyễn Hữu Thảo, Nguyễn Quang, Trịnh Hoàng Giang, Nguyễn Tiến Dũng, Bùi Xuân Trường. Xử lý hạch trong điều trị ung thư dương vật: Tổng quan. Tạp chí Y học Cộng đồng, 2024, 65 (CĐ 4): 180-187. doi: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD4.1173 Google Scholar
[7]
Andreșanu A, Gîngu C, Georgescu D.E et al. Prognostic factors of survival in patients with surgically treated penile squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort analysis. Cancers (Basel), 2026, 18 (6): 952. doi: 10.3390/cancers18060952 Google Scholar
[8]
Tan Y.G, Fong K.Y, Goh N.K 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 Google Scholar
[9]
Shao Y, Hu X, Ren S et al. Comparison of different surgical methods and strategies for inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer. Sci Rep, 2022, 12 (1): 2560. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06494-z Google Scholar
[10]
Gao Y, Shao Y, Li X et al. Risk factors of complications after inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2025, 43 (5_suppl): 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2025.43.5_suppl.6 Google Scholar
[11]
Gómez-Ferrer A, Collado A, Ramírez M et al. A single-center comparison of initial experiences treating penile and urethral cancer with video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL), and its later application in melanoma patients. Front Surg, 2022, 9: 870857. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.870857 Google Scholar
[12]
Li Z.S, Yao K, Chen P et al. Disease-specific survival after radical lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: prediction by lymph node count and density. Urol Oncol, 2014, 32 (6): 893-900. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.11.008 Google Scholar