Improvements and challenges in intraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy: The novel "tent-pitching" antegrade approach and vascular anatomical variations in the para-aortic region.
laparoscopy
para‐aortic lymphadenectomy
surgical techniques
vascular abnormalities
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jul 2024
14 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
22
06
2024
received:
21
01
2024
accepted:
22
06
2024
medline:
15
7
2024
pubmed:
15
7
2024
entrez:
15
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study introduces and compares a new intraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy method to reach the level of the renal vein, the "tent-pitching" antegrade approach with the retrograde approach in gynecological malignancy surgeries in terms of success rate, complication incidence, and the number of lymph nodes removed. It focuses on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness. Meanwhile, this article reports on the vascular anatomical variations discovered in the para-aortic region to enhance surgical safety. This was a retrospective cohort study including patients undergone laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy at a single center from January 2020 to December 2023 for high-risk endometrial and early-stage ovarian cancer. Patient charts were reviewed for mode of operation, perioperative complications, operative details, and histopathology. The patients were divided into anterograde group and retrograde group according to the operation mode. The two groups were further compared based on the success rate of lymph node clearance at the renal vein level, perioperative complications, and the number of removed lymph nodes. Quantitative data were analyzed using the t-test, non-normally distributed data using the rank-sum test, and categorical data using Fisher's exact test and the chi-square test, with statistical significance defined as P < 0.05. Among 173 patients, the antegrade group showed higher surgery success (97.5% vs 68.82%), more lymph nodes removed (median 14 vs 7), and less median blood loss. The operation time was shorter in the antegrade group. Postoperative complications like lymphocele and venous thrombosis were lower in the antegrade group. Vascular abnormalities were found in 28.9% of patients, with accessory lumbar vein routing anomaly and accessory renal arteries being most common. The antegrade approach is feasible, safe, and effective, improving surgical exposure, reducing difficulty without additional instruments or puncture sites, and minimizing organ damage risk. It is effective in achieving better access to the renal vein and removing more para-aortic lymph nodes than the retrograde method. Recognizing and carefully managing the diverse vascular abnormalities in the para-aortic area, including variations in renal arteries, veins, and the inferior vena cava, is essential to reduce intraoperative bleeding and the likelihood of converting to open surgery.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
Practice Bulletin No. 149, Endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1006‐1026.
Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Spannuth W, et al. Lymphadenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:291‐294.
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO‐ESGO‐ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:16‐41.
SGO Clinical Practice Endometrial Cancer Working Group, Burke WM, Orr J, et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;34:385‐392.
Casarin J, Multinu F, Abu‐Rustum N, et al. Factors influencing the adoption of the sentinel lymph node technique for endometrial cancer staging: an international survey of gynecologic oncologists. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:60‐67.
Koh WJ, Abu‐Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:170‐199.
Lecointre L, Lodi M, Faller É, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of sentinel lymph node sampling in endometrial cancer at high risk of recurrence: a meta‐analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3874.
Buderath P, Rusch P, Mach P, Kimmig R. Cancer field surgery in endometrial cancer: peritoneal mesometrial resection and targeted compartmental lymphadenectomy for locoregional control. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021;32:e7.
Buderath P, Elgharib M, Kimmig R. Peritoneal mesometrial resection with lymphadenectomy following prior hysterectomy in intermediate/high‐risk endometrial cancer: feasibility and safety. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;309:1569‐1574.
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO‐ESGO‐ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:2‐30.
Querleu D, Darai E, Lecuru F, et al. Primary management of endometrial carcinoma. Joint recommendations of the French society of gynecologic oncology (SFOG) and of the French college of obstetricians and gynecologists (CNGOF). Gynaecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017;45:715‐725.
Horn LC, Emons G, Aretz S, et al. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (DKG); Kommission zur Erstellung der S3‐Leitlinie, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der Patientinnen mit Endometriumkarzinom. S3‐Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie des Endometriumkarzinoms: Anforderungen an die Pathologie [S3 guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma of the endometrium: Requirements for pathology]. In German. Pathologe. 2019;40:21‐35.
Ballester M, Bendifallah S, Daraï E. Nouvelles recommandations EMSO, ESGO, ESTRO sur la prise en charge des cancers de l'endomètre [European guidelines (ESMO‐ESGO‐ESTRO consensus conference) for the management of endometrial cancer].In French. Bull Cancer. 2017;104:1032‐1038.
Uran T, Yilmaz SS, Hizli D, et al. A prospective evaluation of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: is it adequate to perform lymph node dissection up to the inferior mesenteric artery? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:864‐869.
Cosin JA, Fowler JM, Chen MD, Paley PJ, Carson LF, Twiggs LB. Pretreatment surgical staging of patients with cervical carcinoma: the case for lymph node debulking. Cancer. 1998;82:2241‐2248.
Morice P, Joulie F, Camatte S, et al. Lymph node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of 276 pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomies and surgical implications. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:198‐205.
Todo Y, Kato H, Minobe S, et al. Initial failure site according to primary treatment with or without para‐aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:314‐318.
Aletti GD, Dowdy S, Podratz KC, Cliby WA. Role of lymphadenectomy in the management of grossly apparent advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1862‐1868.
Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:11‐18.
Pereira A, Magrina JF, Rey V, Cortes M, Magtibay PM. Pelvic and aortic lymph node metastasis in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:604‐608.
Todo Y, Suzuki Y, Azuma M, et al. Ultrastaging of para‐aortic lymph nodes in stage IIIC1 endometrial cancer: a preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:532‐537.
Multinu F, Casarin J, Cappuccio S, et al. Ultrastaging of negative pelvic lymph nodes to decrease the true prevalence of isolated paraaortic dissemination in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154:60‐64.
Mariani A, Keeney GL, Aletti G, Webb MJ, Haddock MG, Podratz KC. Endometrial carcinoma: paraaortic dissemination. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92:833‐838.
Kehoe SM, Abu‐Rustum NR. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancers. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2006;7:93‐101.
Eisenhauer EL, Wypych KA, Mehrara BJ, et al. Comparing surgical outcomes in obese women under‐going laparotomy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy with panniculectomy for thestaging of uterine malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2384‐2391.
Dowdy SC, Aletti G, Cliby WA, Podratz KC, Mariani A. Extra‐peritoneal laparoscopic para‐aortic lymphadenectomy—a prospective cohort study of 293 patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:418‐424.
Kimmig R, Thangarajah F, Buderath P. Sentinel lymph node detection in endometrial cancer—anatomical and scientific facts. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;94:102483.
Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:384‐392.
Bodurtha Smith AJ, Fader AN, Tanner EJ. Sentinel lymph node assessment in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:459‐476.e10.
Frumovitz M, Plante M, Lee PS, et al. Near‐infrared fluorescence for detection of sentinel lymph nodes in women with cervical and uterine cancers (FILM): a randomised, phase 3, multicentre, non‐inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1394‐1403.
Holloway RW, Abu‐Rustum NR, Backes FJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:405‐415.
Frumovitz M, Coleman RC, Soliman PT, Ramirez PT, Levenback CF. A case for caution in the pursuit of the sentinel node in women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:275‐279.
Kimmig R, Aktas B, Buderath P, Rusch P, Heubner M. Intraoperative navigation in robotically assisted compartmental surgery of uterinecancer by visualisation of embryologically derived lymphatic networks with indocyanine‐green (ICG). Surg Oncol. 2016;113:554‐559.
AlHilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para‐aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18:193‐199.
Soliman PT, Westin SN, Dioun S, et al. A prospective validation study of sentinel lymph node mapping for high‐risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:234‐239.
Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, et al. Therapeutic role oflymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer. 2006;107:1823‐1830.
Chan JK, Urban R, Hu JM, et al. The potential therapeuticrole of lymph node resection in epithelial ovarian cancer: a studyof 13918 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1817‐1822.
Köhler C, Klemm P, Schau A, et al. Introduction of transperitoneal lymphadenectomy in a gynecologic oncology center: analysis of 650 laparoscopic pelvic and/or paraaortic transperitoneal lymphadenectomies. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:52‐61.
Scribner DR Jr, Walker JL, Johnson GA, McMeekin DS, Gold MA, Mannel RS. Laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection in the obese. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84:426‐430.
Klemm P, Fröber R, Köhler C, Schneider A. Vascular anomalies in the paraaortic region diagnosed by laparoscopy in patients with gynaecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96:278‐282.
Shao MJ, Jin LY, Wang DG, Ji LM, Hu M. A modified technique to perform para‐aortic lymphadenectomy up to the renal vein. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59:541‐545.
Kavallaris A, Kalogiannidis I, Chalvatzas N, Hornemann A, Bohlmann MK, Diedrich K. Standardized technique of laparoscopic pelvic and para‐aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer optimizes the perioperative outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1373‐1380.
Zhang X, Ding J, Hua K. Laparoscopic local extraperitoneal para‐aortic lymphadenectomy: description of a novel technique. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6:377‐380.
Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU. Robotic‐assisted infrarenal para aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancers: technique and surgical outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:951‐958.
Lin Y, He L, Mei Y. A new technique of laparoscopic para‐aortic lymphadenectomy optimizes perioperative outcome. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021;32:e2.
Benedetti‐Panici P, Scambia G, Baiocchi G, Greggi S, Mancuso S. Technique and feasibility of radical para‐aortic and pelvic lymphade‐nectomy for gynecologic malignancies: a prospective study. IntJ Gynecol Cancer. 1991;1:133‐140.
Pomel C, Naik R, Martinez A, et al. Systematic (complete) para‐aortic lymphadenectomy: description of a novel surgical classification with technical and anatomical considerations. BJOG. 2012;119:249‐253.
Yeh BM, Coakley FV, Meng MV, Breiman RS, Stoller ML. Precaval right renal arteries: prevalence and morphologic associations at spiral CT. Radiology. 2004;230:429‐433.
Huntington GS, McLure CFW. The development of the veins in the domestic cat (felis domestica) with especial reference, (1) to the share taken by the supracardinal vein in the development of the postcava and azygous vein and (2) to the interpretation of the variant conditions of the postcava and its tributaries, as found in the adult. Anat Rec. 1920;20:1‐29.
Truty MJ, Bower TC. Congenital anomalies of the inferior vena cava and left renal vein: implications during open abdominal aortic aneurysm reconstruction. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007;21:186‐197.
Hoeltl W, Hruby W, Aharinejad S. Renal vein anatomy and its implications for retroperitoneal surgery. J Urol. 1990;143:1108‐1114.
Murakami A, Amano T, Seko‐Nitta A, Takahashi A, Kimura F, Murakami T. Successful para‐aortic lymph node dissection for endometrial cancer with horseshoe kidney: a case report and review of the literature. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45:2128‐2131.