Significant reduction of lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
pelvic lymph node dissection
peritoneal fenestration
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
symptomatic lymphocele
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
revised:
23
04
2021
received:
30
12
2020
accepted:
23
05
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
4
1
2022
entrez:
26
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To reduce the risk of symptomatic lymphocele (SLC), we present a technique using peritoneal fenestration that allows lymphatic fluid to drain into the abdomen, as SLC formation after open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is a common adverse event. We identified 1513 patients who underwent ORP with PLND between July 2018 and November 2019. Of those, 307 patients (20.3%) received peritoneal fenestration and 1206 (79.7%) no fenestration. The rate of LCs and the necessity for intervention were analysed by uni- and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models. A propensity score matching was performed, as well. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 65 (60-70) years. A median (IQR) of 16 (10-22) lymph nodes were dissected, 22 vs 14 lymph nodes in the fenestration vs non-fenestration group (P < 0.001). Overall, 189 patients (12.5%) were diagnosed with a LC after ORP, while 21 patients (6.8%) in the fenestration and 168 (13.9%) in the non-fenestration group had LCs (P = 0.001). In 70 patients (4.7%), LCs required further intervention, categorised as Clavien-Dindo Grade IIIa/b, with a smaller proportion in the fenestration group (2.9% vs 5.0% in the non-fenestration group, P < 0.001). There were no Clavien-Dindo Grade IV or V complications, in particular no abdominal complications in association with peritoneal fenestration observed. In MLR, peritoneal fenestration was associated with a reduced risk of LCs (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.5; P < 0.001). The risk reduction was also shown after propensity score matching (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.68; P = 0.001). The number needed to treat was 14. Peritoneal fenestration may decrease the rate of SLC after ORP with (extended) PLND. Therefore, it should be part of the operative strategy.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
728-733Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International.
Références
Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh R et al. members of the EAU - ESTRO - ESUR -SIOG Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Retrieved from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ [updated 2020; cited 2020 Dec 29]
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1006-13
Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 2008; 179: 923-9
Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Jonas L et al. Influence of low-molecular-weight heparin dosage on red blood cell transfusion, lymphocele rate and drainage duration after open radical prostatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012; 38: 1082-8
Khoder WY, Trottmann M, Buchner A et al. Risk factors for pelvic lymphoceles post-radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2011; 18: 638-43
Tsaur I, Thomas C. Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: A mini-review. Int J Urol 2019; 26: 711-6
Capitanio U, Pellucchi F, Gallina A et al. How can we predict lymphorrhoea and clinically significant lymphocoeles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy? Clinical implications. BJU Int. 2011; 107: 1095-101
Liss MA, Skarecky D, Morales B, Osann K, Eichel L, Ahlering TE. Preventing perioperative complications of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 2013; 81: 319-23
Naselli A, Andreatta R, Introini C, Fontana V, Puppo P. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 75: 630-5
Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR. Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1185-90
Lee HJ, Kane CJ. How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2014; 15: 445
Stolzenburg JU, Wasserscheid J, Rabenalt R et al. Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration. World J Urol 2008; 26: 581-6
Layman RE, McNally M, Kilian C et al. Does opening the peritoneum at the time of renal transplantation prevent lymphocele formation? Transplant Proc. 2006; 38: 3524-6
Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 7-16
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE. Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA<10ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2006; 50: 272-9
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-13
Wilczak W, Wittmer C, Clauditz T et al. Marked prognostic impact of minimal lymphatic tumor spread in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 376-86
Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 84-109
Lebeis C, Canes D, Sorcini A, Moinzadeh A. Novel technique prevents lymphoceles after transperitoneal robotic-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection: Peritoneal flap interposition. Urology 2015; 85: 1505-9
Gilbert DR, Angell J, Abaza R. Evaluation of absorbable hemostatic powder for prevention of lymphoceles following robotic prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy. Urology 2016; 98: 75-80
Danuser H, Di Pierro GB, Stucki P, Mattei A. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: is pelvic drainage necessary? BJU Int 2013; 111: 963-9
Grande P, Di Pierro GB, Mordasini L et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing titanium clips to bipolar coagulation in sealing lymphatic vessels during pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 155-8
Thomas C, Ziewers S, Thomas A et al. Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2019; 51: 633-40
Waldert M, Remzi M, Klatte T, Klingler HC. FloSeal reduces the incidence of lymphoceles after lymphadenectomies in laparoscopic and robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011; 25: 969-73
Dal Moro F, Zattoni F. P.L.E.A.T.-preventing lymphocele ensuring absorption transperitoneally: a robotic technique. Urology 2017; 110: 244-7