Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis.
Age Factors
Aged
Dissection
/ adverse effects
Drainage
Humans
Lymph Node Excision
/ adverse effects
Lymphocele
/ etiology
Male
Middle Aged
Pelvis
Prostatectomy
/ adverse effects
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ surgery
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Lymph node excision
Lymphocele
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Risk factors
Journal
International urology and nephrology
ISSN: 1573-2584
Titre abrégé: Int Urol Nephrol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0262521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
14
12
2018
accepted:
08
02
2019
pubmed:
24
2
2019
medline:
31
12
2019
entrez:
24
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lymphocele (LC) is the most common adverse sequela of pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Current evidence on comparison between robotic (RARP) and open retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in terms of the development of symptomatic LCs (SLCs) is conflicting. Moreover, no single-center assessment has illuminated the impact of the anterior vs. posterior approach of RARP on the rate of SLCs yet. We aimed to compare RRP and transperitoneal RARP for the SLC development and associated clinical risk factors. Patients treated with RRP or transperitoneal RARP (both with standard PLND) were included. Univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized to compare the cohorts and define independent predictive variables for the development of SLCs. Five hundred and ninety-five consecutive PCa patients underwent RRP and 277 ones RARP (76 anterior and 201 posterior approaches). The incidence of SLCs did not differ between both cohorts. Age and lymph node yield were independent predictors for the development of SLCs after RRP. There was a trend for a longer median time to development of SLCs after RARP as compared to RRP. Median duration of percutaneous drainage tended to be higher after RRP then after RARP. Failure rate of lymphocele drainage was comparable between both techniques. RRP and RARP are associated with the same risk for the development of a SLC. Posterior approach does not reduce the SLC formation compared to the anterior technique. Patients' age and LN yield are predictive for the SLC occurrence in patients treated with RRP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30796729
doi: 10.1007/s11255-019-02103-7
pii: 10.1007/s11255-019-02103-7
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
633-640Références
Cancer. 2000 May 1;88(9):2105-9
pubmed: 10813722
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37(3):218-21
pubmed: 12775280
J Urol. 2004 Oct;172(4 Pt 1):1286-90
pubmed: 15371825
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2252-5
pubmed: 15538242
J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1860-4
pubmed: 15540739
Urology. 2010 Mar;75(3):630-5
pubmed: 19476977
Urology. 2009 Aug;74(2):296-302
pubmed: 19515403
BJU Int. 2010 Jan;105(1):88-92
pubmed: 19549119
BJU Int. 2009 Jul;104(1):128-53
pubmed: 19646130
J Endourol. 2009 Aug;23(8):1313-7
pubmed: 19653874
J Endourol. 2010 Jul;24(7):1055-60
pubmed: 20575697
Urologe A. 2010 Jul;49(7):832-6
pubmed: 20577710
BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107(7):1095-101
pubmed: 20880192
BJU Int. 2011 Oct;108(7):1185-90
pubmed: 21489117
Int J Urol. 2011 Sep;18(9):638-43
pubmed: 21689165
BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6 Pt 2):993-8
pubmed: 21917102
Urology. 2013 Feb;81(2):319-23
pubmed: 23374792
Urol Int. 2013;90(3):312-5
pubmed: 23485928
Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):7-16
pubmed: 23582879
Eur Urol. 2014 May;65(5):918-27
pubmed: 23721959
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Sep;40(9):1080-6
pubmed: 24411705
Eur Urol. 2014 Oct;66(4):635-43
pubmed: 24411992
BJU Int. 2015 Jun;115(6):929-36
pubmed: 24958338
Curr Urol Rep. 2014 Oct;15(10):445
pubmed: 25129450
Int J Urol. 2015 Oct;22(10):916-21
pubmed: 26212891
BJU Int. 2016 Jul;118(1):127-31
pubmed: 26800257
Eur Urol. 2017 Feb;71(2):155-158
pubmed: 27544575
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Eur Urol. 2017 Feb;71(2):159-160
pubmed: 27595375
Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Jun;18(6):42
pubmed: 28417427
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Jul;49(7):1183-1191
pubmed: 28439680
J Urol. 1996 Dec;156(6):1969-71
pubmed: 8911367