Definition and severity grading of postoperative lymphatic leakage following inguinal lymph node dissection.
Complications
ILND
Lymphatic fistula
Lymphogenic morbidity
Melanoma
Outcome
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
11
12
2019
accepted:
02
07
2020
pubmed:
21
8
2020
medline:
20
7
2021
entrez:
21
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lymphatic complications occur frequently after radical inguinal lymph node dissection (RILND). The incidence of lymphatic leakage varies considerably among different studies due to the lack of a consistent definition. The aim of the present study is to propose a standardized definition and grading of different types of lymphatic leakage after groin dissection. A bicentric retrospective analysis of 82 patients who had undergone RILND was conducted. A classification of postoperative lymphatic leakage was developed on the basis of the daily drainage output, any necessary postoperative interventions and reoperations, and any delay in adjuvant treatment. In the majority of cases, RILND was performed in patients with inguinal metastases of malignant melanoma (n = 71). Reinterventions were necessary in 15% of the patients and reoperations in 32%. A new classification of postoperative lymphatic leakage was developed. According to this definition, grade A lymphatic leakage (continued secretion of lymphatic fluid from the surgical drains without further complications) occurred in 13% of the patients, grade B lymphatic leakage (persistent drainage for more than 10 postoperative days or the occurrence of a seroma after the initial removal of the drain that requires an intervention) in 28%, and grade C lymphatic leakage (causing a reoperation or a subsequent conflict with medical measures) in 33%. The drainage volume on the second postoperative day was a suitable predictor for a complicated lymphatic leakage (grades B and C) with a cutoff of 110 ml. The proposed definition is clinically relevant, is easy to employ, and may serve as the definition of a standardized endpoint for the assessment of lymphatic morbidity after RILND in future studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32816115
doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-01927-7
pii: 10.1007/s00423-020-01927-7
pmc: PMC7449944
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
697-704Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Mar;117(3):976-85
pubmed: 16525295
Ann Vasc Surg. 2014 Feb;28(2):495-7
pubmed: 24360946
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Mar;41(3):274-81
pubmed: 25583458
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Aug;35(8):884-9
pubmed: 19010636
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2006 Aug;391(4):435-8
pubmed: 16683147
J Surg Res. 2013 Sep;184(1):209-15
pubmed: 23688786
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002 Sep;24(3):196-201
pubmed: 12217279
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;40(10):1284-90
pubmed: 24612654
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Oct;95(1):226-30
pubmed: 15385136
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Mar;66(3):390-6
pubmed: 23107617
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Oct;17(10):2764-72
pubmed: 20336388
Zentralbl Chir. 2009 Sep;134(5):437-42
pubmed: 19757344
Am J Surg. 1992 Nov;164(5):462-5; discussion 465-6
pubmed: 1443370
Ann Vasc Surg. 2013 Nov;27(8):1207-15
pubmed: 23850312
World J Surg Oncol. 2008 Jun 18;6:63
pubmed: 18564433
Strahlenther Onkol. 2005 Oct;181(10):660-4
pubmed: 16220405
World J Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec 19;10:275
pubmed: 23253298
Tech Urol. 1999 Mar;5(1):52-3
pubmed: 10374797
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jun;20(6):2049-55
pubmed: 23338482
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 20;8(40):69062-69075
pubmed: 28978181
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009 Mar;62(3):e55-8
pubmed: 19010103
Eur Urol. 2013 Sep;64(3):486-92
pubmed: 23490726
J Surg Oncol. 2019 May;119(6):728-736
pubmed: 30674074
Int J Urol. 2011 Apr;18(4):291-6
pubmed: 21306438
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2008 Nov;35(12):2162-4
pubmed: 19106557
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1716-20
pubmed: 26714939