Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This review describes the morbidity of inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) performed as part of the management of penile cancer as well as recent modifications that may reduce the incidence of complications.

Methods

A review of the literature was conducted using Pubmed© for studies reporting complication outcomes of ILND for penile cancer. Furthermore, our contemporary results and patient related morbidity associated with ILND performed for penile cancer are reported and compared with prior series.

Results

A review of the literature over the past 25 years identified 27 manuscripts discussing complications of ILND in the context of penile cancer. ILND has traditionally been associated with an 80–100% risk of surgical morbidity, with skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, and lymphedema the predominant findings. Recent technical modifications and management strategies have reduced the associated risks of this surgical procedure. Most recently, we report a 19 and 27% rate of minor and major complications, respectively, for a diagnostic ILND (i.e., superficial ILND alone in the absence of nodal metastasis) and a 29 and 24% rate of minor and major complications, respectively, for a therapeutic ILND (superficial/deep ILND and pelvic lymph node dissection in the presence of nodal metastasis). In contrast, among clinically node negative patients undergoing dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging procedure, the reported complication rate was 7%.

Conclusions

The incorporation of novel management strategies and surgical modifications have resulted in decreasing peri-operative morbidity associated with inguinal staging and therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taussky D, Crook J, Al Ghamdi A, Fleshner N, Jewett MA (2006) Treatment of the inguinal regions in penile cancer: a review of the literature and treatment proposal. Can J Urol 13:2978–2983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Lont AP, Tanis PJ, Gallee MP, Nieweg OE (2005) Patients with penile carcinoma benefit from immediate resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases. J Urol 173:816–819

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ravi R (1993) Morbidity following groin dissection for penile carcinoma. Br J Urol 72:941–945

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, de Moraes JR (1991) Analysis of 200 lymphadenectomies in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol 146:330–332

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson DE, Lo RK (1984) Complications of groin dissection in penile cancer. Experience with 101 lymphadenectomies. Urology 24:312–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Coblentz TR, Theodorescu D (2002) Morbidity of modified prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 168:1386–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Milathianakis C, Bogdanos J, Karamanolakis D (2005) Morbidity of prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy with saphenous vein preservation for squamous cell penile carcinoma. Int J Urol 12:776–778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Slaton JW, Morgenstern N, Levy DA, Santos MW Jr, Tamboli P, Ro JY, Ayala AG, Pettaway CA (2001) Tumor stage, vascular invasion, and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cancer. J Urol 165:1138–1142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wein A, Kavoussi L, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CG (2007) Tumors of he penis (chapter 31). Campbell-Walsh Urology, 9th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 959–992

    Google Scholar 

  10. Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Windahl T (2004) EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol 46:1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Meinhardt W, van der Poel HG, Bex A, van Tinteren H, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE (2005) Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma: evaluation of 10 years experience. Eur Urol 47:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kroon BK, Valdes-Olmos RA, van Tinteren H, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S (2005) Reproducibility of lymphoscintigraphy for lymphatic mapping in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol 174:2214–2217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spiess PE, Izawa JI, Bassett R, Kedar D, Busby JE, Wong F, Eddings T, Tamboli P, Pettaway CA (2007) Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and dynamic sentinel node biopsy for staging penile cancer: Results with pathological correlation. J Urol 177:2157–2161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Estourgie SH, Lont AP, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE (2004) How to avoid false-negative dynamic sentinel node procedures in penile carcinoma. J Urol 171:2191–2194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MP, van Tinteren H, Moonen LM, Horenblas S (2007) Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol 177:947–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, Heller L, Pagliaro LC, Pettaway CA (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:1335–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sobin LH, Wittekind C (1997) UICC International Union Against Cancer: Urological tumours. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp 187–201

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA (2002) Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience. J Urol 167:1638–1642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kamat MR, Kulkarni JN, Tongaonkar HB (1993) Carcinoma of the penis: the Indian experience. J Surg Oncol 52:50–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Josephs LG, Cordts PR, DiEdwardo CL, LaMorte WW, Menzoian JP (1993) Do infected inguinal lymph nodes increase the incidence of postoperative groin wound infection. J Vasc Surg 17:1077–1080

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tonouchi H, Ohmori Y, Kobayashi M, Konishi N, Tanaka K, Mohri Y, Mizutani H, Kusunoki M (2004) Operative morbidity associated with groin dissections. Surg Today 34:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Qi F, Gu J, Shi Y (2008) Difficult groin reconstruction using contralateral rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:147e–148e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evriviades D, Raurell A, Perks AG (2007) Pedicled anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction after radical groin dissection. Urology 70:996–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rayment R, Evans DM (1987) Use of an abdominal rotation flap for inguinal lymph node dissection. Br J Plast Surg 40:485–487

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abraham V, Ravi R, Shrivastava BR (1992) Primary reconstruction to avoid wound breakdown following groin block dissection. Br J Plast Surg 45:211–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Parkash S (1982) Use of myocutaneous flaps in block dissections of the groin in cases with gross skin involvement. Br J Plast Surg 35:413–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F, Hetet JF, Karam G (2004) Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 45:761–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nelson BA, Cookson MS, Smith JA Jr, Chang SS (2004) Complications of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a contemporary series. J Urol 172:494–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Catalona WJ (1988) Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 140:306–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang X, Sheng X, Niu J, Li H, Li D, Tang L, Li Q, Li Q (2007) Sparing of Saphenous vein during inguinal Lymphadenectomy for vulvar malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 105:722–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Magri K, Bertrand V, Sautiere JL, Pivot X, Riethmuller D, Maillet R, Marinkovic Z (2006) Cost effectiveness of Ligasure Precise versus surgical clips during axillary nodal dissection for breast cancer. J Gynecol Obstet Reprod (Paris) 35:341–347

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Adwani A, Ebbs SR (2006) Ultracision reduces acute blood loss but not seroma formation after mastectomy and axillary dissection: a pilot study. Int J Clin Pract 60:562–564

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Garfein ES, Borud LJ, Warren AG, Slavin SA (2008) Learning from a lymphedema clinic: an algorithm for the management of localized swelling. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:521–528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, Slavin SA (2007) Lymphedema: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg 59:464–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Malone PC, Agutter PS (2006) The aetiology of deep venous thrombosis. QJM 99:581–593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ettema HB, Kollen BJ, Verheyen CC, Buller HR (2008) Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with immobilization of the lower extremity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost 6(7):1093–1098

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sawchuk IS, Williams D, Chang DT (2002) Low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in urologic oncologic surgery. Cancer Invest 20:889–892

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kroon BK, Lont AP, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S (2005) Morbidity of dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma. J Urol 173:813–815

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Ornellas AA, Molina WR Jr, Juliano RV, Wroclawski ER (2007) Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: a new minimally invasive procedure for radical management of inguinal nodes in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:953–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sotelo R, Sanchez-Salas R, Carmano O, Garcia A, Mariano M, Neiva G, Trujillo G, Novoa J, Cornejo F, Finelli A (2007) Endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma. J Endourol 21:364–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lopes A, Hidalgo GS, Kowalski LP, Torlani H, Rossi BM, Fonseca FP (1996) Prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol 156:1637–1642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Darai E, Karaitianos I, Durand JC (1988) Treatment of inguinal lymph nodes in cancer of the penis. Apropos of 85 cases treated at the Institute Curie. Ann Chir 42:748–752

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ayyappan K, Ananthakrishnan N, Sankaran V (1994) Can regional lymph node involvement be predicted in patients with carcinoma of the penis? Br J Urol 73:549–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Office # 4035C, Tampa, FL, 33612-9415, USA

    Philippe E. Spiess

  2. Division of Quantitative Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA

    Mike S. Hernandez

  3. Departments of Urology and Cancer Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Curtis A. Pettaway

Authors
  1. Philippe E. Spiess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike S. Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Curtis A. Pettaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Curtis A. Pettaway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spiess, P.E., Hernandez, M.S. & Pettaway, C.A. Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol 27, 205–212 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0324-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0324-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation