Frontiers in surgery · 2022
A single-center comparison of our initial experiences in treating penile and urethral cancer with video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and later experiences in melanoma cases.
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.
Gómez-Ferrer A, Collado A, Ramírez M, Domínguez J, Casanova J, Mir C, Wong A, Marenco J L, Nagore E, Soriano V, Rubio-Briones J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is a minimally invasive approach that is increasingly indicated in oncological settings, with mounting evidence for its long-term oncological safety.
OBJECTIVES: To present our single-center experience of treating penile and urethral cancer with VEIL, as well as its more recent application in melanoma patients.
METHODS: We prospectively recorded our experiences with VEIL from September 2010 to July 2018, registering the patient primary indication, surgical details, complications, and follow-up.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were operated in one (24) or both (5) groins; 18 had penile cancer, 1 had urethral cancer, and 10 had melanoma. A mean 8.62 ± 4.45 lymph nodes were removed using VEIL and of these, an average of 1.00 ± 2.87 were metastatic; 16 patients developed lymphocele and 10 presented some degree of lymphedema; there were no skin or other major complications. The median follow-up was 19.35 months; there were 3 penile cancer patient recurrences in the VEIL-operated side. None of the melanoma patients presented a lymphatic inguinal recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: VEIL is a minimally invasive technique which appears to be oncologically safe showing fewer complications than open surgery. However, complications such as lymphorrhea, lymphocele, or lymphedema were not diminished by using VEIL.
OBJECTIVES: To present our single-center experience of treating penile and urethral cancer with VEIL, as well as its more recent application in melanoma patients.
METHODS: We prospectively recorded our experiences with VEIL from September 2010 to July 2018, registering the patient primary indication, surgical details, complications, and follow-up.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were operated in one (24) or both (5) groins; 18 had penile cancer, 1 had urethral cancer, and 10 had melanoma. A mean 8.62 ± 4.45 lymph nodes were removed using VEIL and of these, an average of 1.00 ± 2.87 were metastatic; 16 patients developed lymphocele and 10 presented some degree of lymphedema; there were no skin or other major complications. The median follow-up was 19.35 months; there were 3 penile cancer patient recurrences in the VEIL-operated side. None of the melanoma patients presented a lymphatic inguinal recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: VEIL is a minimally invasive technique which appears to be oncologically safe showing fewer complications than open surgery. However, complications such as lymphorrhea, lymphocele, or lymphedema were not diminished by using VEIL.