Experiences of anterograde laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection of 14 penile cancer patients

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.04.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the safty and effect of laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection for patients with penile cancer.

Methods

Clinical data of 14 penile cancer patients who received laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissections from January 2014 to December 2019 in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Operation preparations, operation durations, complications during and post operations, recovery and follow up visits were all taken into considerations.

Results

14 patients had successfully underwent inguinal lymph node dissection. The mean operation time was (163±47) min and the mean volume of bleeding during operation was (28±13) ml. The duration for follow-up visit was from 6 to 48 months. Follow-up visits included abdominal and lung CT, and no signs of metastasis and recurrence were indicated.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection is a safe and efficient surgical procedure that got many therapeutical advantages. This procedure requires advanced technical kills from surgeons.

Key words: Penile cancer, Laparoscopy, Lymph node dissection

Hao Zhang, Yuanjun Jiang, Tao Liu. Experiences of anterograde laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection of 14 penile cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(04): 317-320.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.04.011

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V15/I04/317

Figures/Tables 2

References 16

[1]	Wang Yonghua, Wang Ke, Chen Yuanbin, et al. Mutational landscape of penile squamous cell carcinoma in a chinese population [J]. Int J Cancer, 2019, 145(5): 1280-1289.
[2]	Li Kai, Sun Jian,Wei Xuedong, et al. Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis following surgery[J]. BMC Cancer, 2019, 19(1): 476.
[3]	朱国栋，杨龙，李黎明. 腔镜下保留大隐静脉及其属支腹股沟淋巴结清扫术[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(4): 233-236.
[4]	Zhou XL, Zhang JF. Endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma and genital malignancy:a preliminary report[J]. J Endourol, 2013, 27(5): 657-661. URL
[5]	Rajeev C, Shahil RK, Dipen P. Video endoscopic inguinal lymph-adenectomy for radical management of inguinal nodes in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Urol Ann, 2016, 8(3): 281-285.
[6]	Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, et al. Penile cancer: Importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease[J]. Int J Cancer, 2005, 116(4): 606-616 .
[7]	何叶叠. cN0期阴茎癌患者腹股沟淋巴结清扫的研究进展[J]. 中国当代医药, 2019, 26(22): 27-30.
[8]	Abbott. AM, Grotz TE, Rueth NM, et al. Minimally invasive.inguinal. lymph node dissection(MILND) for melanoma:experience from two academic centers[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013, 20(1): 340- 345. URL
[9]	Bishoff JA, Lackland AF, Basler JW, et al.Endoscopic subcutaneous modified inguinal lymph node dissection (ESMIL) for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis[J]. J Urol, 2003, 169(Supl 4): 78.
[10]	李栋，刘建民，杨帅. 阴茎癌腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫两种不同入路疗效比较[J]. 中国现代医药杂志, 2018, 20(12): 15-19.
[11]	Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, et al.Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node disection for penile cancer in an international multicentre cohort[J]. BJU Int, 2015, 116(2): 196-201.
[12]	吴健勇，唐勇，易贤林, 等. 阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术中保留大隐静脉能否减少术后并发症的系统评价[J]. 现代泌尿生殖肿瘤杂志, 2017(4): 210-216.
[13]	汪凯，王明刚，赵李平, 等. 持续负压封闭引流预防腹股沟淋巴结清扫术后淋巴漏[J]. 中华整形外科杂志, 2014, 30(4) : 262-264.
	王凯臣，张慕淳，霍威, 等. 腹股沟淋巴结活检在老年阴茎癌手术中的作用[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2012, 32(9): 1962.
[14]	Chipollini J, Tang DH, Gilbert SM, et al.Delay to inguinal lymph node dissection greater than 3 months predicts poorer recurrence-free survival for patients with penile cancer[J]. J Urol, 2017, 198(6): 1346-1352.
[15]	Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, et al.The 2016 WHO clasification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 70(1): 93-105.
[16]	王进有，于德新，谢栋栋, 等.阴茎鳞癌组织学亚型与腹股沟淋巴结转移的相关性分析[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2016(11): 834-837.

病例	腹股沟区超声结果	CT结果	术后淋巴结病理（阳性/总数）	术后并发症
1	双侧可见数个低回声，中心部回声增强，大者2.5 cm×0.6 cm	双侧腹股沟区大小不等，左侧大小约1.5 cm×1.9 cm边缘细环形强化	左(0/5) 右(0/4)	无
2	双侧可见数个低回声，皮髓质结构可见，大者约0.7 cm×0.5 cm	左侧腹股沟可见一枚淋巴结略大，较均匀强化，大小约0.65 cm×0.8 cm	左(0/3) 右(0/6)	无
3	左侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结，类圆形，大者约4.0 cm×3.0 cm，条样	左侧4.0 cm×3.3 cm CT值约50 Hu	左(2/5) 右(0/7)	无
4	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约0.8 cm×0.5 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/8) 右(0/8)	淋巴瘘
5	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.6 cm×0.7 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/6)	无
6	右侧腹股沟可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.8 cm×1.0 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/9) 右(3/3)	无
7	双侧可见数个低回声，皮质增厚，大者约2.5 cm×1.0 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/6)	下肢水肿
8	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约3.3 cm×0.8 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/2)	无
9	右侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.0 cm×1.4 cm，皮质均匀增厚，其内回声不均匀，可见无回声	右侧腹股沟区可见大小约2.0 cm×1.0 cm强化淋巴结	左(0/10) 右(2/5)	无
10	左侧腹股沟区低回声包块，范围约4.4 cm×3.1 cm，其内回声不规则，边界及内部可见点条状血流	左侧腹股沟区可见大小约4.0 cm×3.0 cm明显强化淋巴结	左(1/5) 右(0/6)	皮瓣坏死
11	右侧腹股沟可见数个淋巴结，大小约3.1 cm×2.6 cm，回声减低，未见髓质结果，局部见无回声	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/2) 右(2/6)	无
12	未查	左侧腹股沟可见肿大淋巴结，大小约1.7 cm×2.5 cm，增强后明显不均匀强化	左(1/5) 右(0/2)	无
13	左侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结，大者约3.4 cm×0.8 cm，条样，皮质回声未见明显增厚，可见髓质回声及门样血流	左侧腹股沟区可见类圆形结节影，大小约2.2 cm×1.6 cm，边界较清晰，平扫CT约为33 Hu，增强后扫描可见强化，CT值约57 Hu	左(1/4) 右(0/6)	淋巴瘘
14	双侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结,皮髓质回声未见明显增强，大者约2.9 cm×0.6 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/7) 右(0/9)	无

病例	腹股沟区超声结果	CT结果	术后淋巴结病理（阳性/总数）	术后并发症
1	双侧可见数个低回声，中心部回声增强，大者2.5 cm×0.6 cm	双侧腹股沟区大小不等，左侧大小约1.5 cm×1.9 cm边缘细环形强化	左(0/5) 右(0/4)	无
2	双侧可见数个低回声，皮髓质结构可见，大者约0.7 cm×0.5 cm	左侧腹股沟可见一枚淋巴结略大，较均匀强化，大小约0.65 cm×0.8 cm	左(0/3) 右(0/6)	无
3	左侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结，类圆形，大者约4.0 cm×3.0 cm，条样	左侧4.0 cm×3.3 cm CT值约50 Hu	左(2/5) 右(0/7)	无
4	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约0.8 cm×0.5 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/8) 右(0/8)	淋巴瘘
5	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.6 cm×0.7 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/6)	无
6	右侧腹股沟可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.8 cm×1.0 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/9) 右(3/3)	无
7	双侧可见数个低回声，皮质增厚，大者约2.5 cm×1.0 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/6)	下肢水肿
8	双侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约3.3 cm×0.8 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/6) 右(0/2)	无
9	右侧可见数个淋巴结，大者约2.0 cm×1.4 cm，皮质均匀增厚，其内回声不均匀，可见无回声	右侧腹股沟区可见大小约2.0 cm×1.0 cm强化淋巴结	左(0/10) 右(2/5)	无
10	左侧腹股沟区低回声包块，范围约4.4 cm×3.1 cm，其内回声不规则，边界及内部可见点条状血流	左侧腹股沟区可见大小约4.0 cm×3.0 cm明显强化淋巴结	左(1/5) 右(0/6)	皮瓣坏死
11	右侧腹股沟可见数个淋巴结，大小约3.1 cm×2.6 cm，回声减低，未见髓质结果，局部见无回声	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/2) 右(2/6)	无
12	未查	左侧腹股沟可见肿大淋巴结，大小约1.7 cm×2.5 cm，增强后明显不均匀强化	左(1/5) 右(0/2)	无
13	左侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结，大者约3.4 cm×0.8 cm，条样，皮质回声未见明显增厚，可见髓质回声及门样血流	左侧腹股沟区可见类圆形结节影，大小约2.2 cm×1.6 cm，边界较清晰，平扫CT约为33 Hu，增强后扫描可见强化，CT值约57 Hu	左(1/4) 右(0/6)	淋巴瘘
14	双侧腹股沟区可见数个淋巴结,皮髓质回声未见明显增强，大者约2.9 cm×0.6 cm	双侧腹股沟区淋巴节肿大	左(0/7) 右(0/9)	无

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export