Dataset Information

Standardized Step-by-step Technique Using Surgical Landmarks in Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to show that a standardized step-by-step robotic approach using surgical landmarks could make lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) less complicated. We performed robot-assisted LPND consisting of 4 steps using surgical landmarks. The first step is a dissection of uretero-hypogastric fascia, which envelopes the ureter and the hypogastric nerve. The second step is a dissection of the medial side of the external iliac vein located at the lateral border of the obturator lymph nodes (LNs) group. The third step is a dissection of the vesico-hypogastric fascia, which is at the medial border of the obturator LNs group. The final step is a dissection of the internal iliac artery until the Alcock's canal. Indocyanine green was injected just before surgery around the dentate line to identify the lateral pelvic LNs. Standardization using a robotic approach for LPND guided by surgical landmarks allows a safer and more effective surgery.

SUBMITTER: Bae JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7989559 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with extended lymphadenectomy (ePLND) is the gold standard for surgical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Recently, the en-bloc ePLND has been proposed but no studies reported on the standardization of the technique. The aim of the study is to describe different standardized en-bloc ePLND, the antegrade and the retrograde ePLND, and to compare their surgical and oncological outcomes.Materials & methodsFrom January 2018 to September 2019, all patients subjected to RARP plus ePLND by one single surgeon were enrolled. ePLND was performed in a retrograde fashion by starting laterally to the medial umbilical ligament from the internal inguinal ring proceeding towards the ureter, or in an antegrade way by starting from the ureter at its crossing with the common iliac artery and proceeding towards the femoral canal. Patients' demographic data, clinical and surgical data were collected. Each en-bloc ePLND was categorized as "efficient" or "inefficient" by the operator, as surrogate of surgeon's satisfaction.ResultsAntegrade and retrograde ePLND were performed in 41/105 (group A) and 64/105 (group R) patients, respectively. The two groups (A vs R) had similar median (IQR) number of lymph nodes retrieved [20 (16.25-31.5) vs 19 (15-26.25); p = 0.18], ePLND time [33.5 (29.5-38.5) min vs 33.5 (26.5-37.5) min; p = 0.4] and post-operative complications [8/41 (19.5%) vs 9/64 (14.1%); p = 0.61]. In group A, 3/41 (7.3%) clinically significant lymphoceles were reported, while 1/64 (1.6%) in group R (p = 0.3). 33/41 (80.5%) and 28/64 (44%) procedures were scored as efficient 59 in group A and R, respectively (p = 0.01). On multivariate regression, only BMI (B = 0.93; 95% CI 0.29-1.56; p = 0.005) was associated with a longer ePLND time.ConclusionsThe study indicates that antegrade and retrograde en-bloc extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) have comparable surgical and oncologic outcomes, supporting the importance of standardizing the procedure rather than focusing on the direction. Although both techniques aligned with current evidence regarding lymph node invasion and complications, the antegrade approach was subjectively perceived as safer due to early isolation of critical anatomical landmarks. Encouragement for the use of en-bloc ePLND, regardless of direction, is emphasized to improve prostate cancer staging accuracy and procedural standardization.

Project description:BackgroundLateral pelvic lymph node (LPN) metastasis causes increased lateral local recurrence and poor prognosis. We aimed to investigate the prognostic significance and effective range of dissection for the LPN dissection (LPND) in rectal cancer patients with LPN metastasis.Materials and methodsThrough this large, multicenter retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of LPND. From January 2012 to December 2019, 387 rectal cancer patients with clinical evidence of LPN metastasis who underwent total mesorectal excision with LPND were included in the study. According to pathological findings, they were divided into negative (n = 296) and positive (n = 91) LPN groups. Primary endpoints were 3-year overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS).ResultsThe OS, RFS, and LRFS in the positive group were significantly worse than those in the negative group; However, LPN metastases were not independent prognostic risk factors for LRFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-7.64; P=0.132). Among patients with pathological LPN metastases, LPN metastases to the common and external iliac arteries were independent prognostic risk factors both for OS (HR: 4.74; 95% CI, 1.74-12.90; P=0.002) and RFS (HR: 2.70; 95% CI, 1.16-6.29; P=0.021). No significant difference was observed in the 3-year OS (72.3% vs. 70.2%, P=0.775) and RFS rates (60.9% vs. 52.6%, P=0.408) between patients with metastases to the obturator or internal iliac arteries and patients at N2b stage.ConclusionsLPND may be effective in controlling local recurrence in patients with LPN metastasis but not systemic metastases. Patients with LPN metastasis limited to the internal iliac and obturator regions achieve a long-term survival benefit from LPND, and their prognoses may be comparable to those at the N2b stage. Further metastasis to the external iliac or common iliac region should be considered systemic disease, and LPND should be avoided.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04850027.

Dataset Information

Standardized Step-by-step Technique Using Surgical Landmarks in Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets