World journal of surgical oncology · 2017
Morbidity and oncologic outcome after saphenous vein-sparing inguinal lymphadenectomy in melanoma patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baur Johannes, Mathe Katrin, Gesierich Anja, Weyandt Gerhard, Wiegering Armin, Germer Christoph-Thomas, Gasser Martin, Pelz Jörg O W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Inguinal lymph node dissection (LND) is a surgical procedure with a high morbidity rate. Variations in surgical procedure, such as sparing of the saphenous vein, have been proposed to reduce surgical morbidity. While sparing of the saphenous vein has shown promising results in earlier studies, data for this procedure in melanoma patients are rare. In this retrospective study, we report 10-year findings on the effects of saphenous vein-sparing LND on surgical morbidity and oncologic outcomes in melanoma patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of melanoma patients receiving inguinal LND in our facility between 2003 and 2013 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: the saphenous vein resection group and the vein sparing group. Surgical morbidity, including wound infection, lymphatic fistula, severe bleeding, neurological complications, and chronic lymphedema, as well as regional recurrence-free survival were investigated.
RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were included in this study; of these, the saphenous vein was spared in 41 patients (38.7%). The rate of lymphatic fistula was 51.6 vs. 48.8%, wound infection occurred in 31.3 vs. 24.4%, and patients suffered from chronic lymphedema in 30.0 vs. 26.5% in V. saphena magna resection vs. sparing group. Differences observed, however, were not significant. No difference in regional recurrence-free survival between the two study groups was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our retrospective analysis could not confirm the promising results reported in earlier studies. Thus, sparing of the saphenous vein appears to be optional.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of melanoma patients receiving inguinal LND in our facility between 2003 and 2013 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: the saphenous vein resection group and the vein sparing group. Surgical morbidity, including wound infection, lymphatic fistula, severe bleeding, neurological complications, and chronic lymphedema, as well as regional recurrence-free survival were investigated.
RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were included in this study; of these, the saphenous vein was spared in 41 patients (38.7%). The rate of lymphatic fistula was 51.6 vs. 48.8%, wound infection occurred in 31.3 vs. 24.4%, and patients suffered from chronic lymphedema in 30.0 vs. 26.5% in V. saphena magna resection vs. sparing group. Differences observed, however, were not significant. No difference in regional recurrence-free survival between the two study groups was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our retrospective analysis could not confirm the promising results reported in earlier studies. Thus, sparing of the saphenous vein appears to be optional.