Search

Background: Inguinal lymph node dissection plays an important role in the management of melanoma, penile and vulval cancer. Inguinal lymph node dissection is associated with various intraoperative and postoperative complications with significant heterogeneity in classification and reporting. This lack of standardization challenges efforts to study and report inguinal lymph node dissection outcomes. The aim of this study was to devise a system to standardize the classification and reporting of inguinal lymph node dissection perioperative complications by creating a worldwide collaborative, the complications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area (CALI) group., Methods: A modified 3-round Delphi consensus approach surveyed a worldwide group of experts in inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma, penile and vulval cancer. The group of experts included general surgeons, urologists and oncologists (gynaecological and surgical). The survey assessed expert agreement on inguinal lymph node dissection perioperative complications. Panel interrater agreement and consistency were assessed as the overall percentage agreement and Cronbach's α., Results: Forty-seven experienced consultants were enrolled: 26 (55.3%) urologists, 11 (23.4%) surgical oncologists, 6 (12.8%) general surgeons and 4 (8.5%) gynaecology oncologists. Based on their expertise, 31 (66%), 10 (21.3%) and 22 (46.8%) of the participants treat penile cancer, vulval cancer and melanoma using inguinal lymph node dissection respectively; 89.4% (42 of 47) agreed with the definitions and inclusion as part of the inguinal lymph node dissection intraoperative complication group, while 93.6% (44 of 47) agreed that postoperative complications should be subclassified into five macrocategories. Unanimous agreement (100%, 37 of 37) was achieved with the final standardized classification system for reporting inguinal lymph node dissection complications in melanoma, vulval cancer and penile cancer., Conclusion: The complications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area classification system has been developed as a tool to standardize the assessment and reporting of complications during inguinal lymph node dissection for the treatment of melanoma, vulval and penile cancer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Background: Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is a minimally invasive technique that gives superior surgical outcomes than open inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL) for treating lymph node metastasis in penile, vulvar, and skin cancers. This study compared surgical outcomes obtained with two different approaches of VEIL, standard VEIL and lateral VEIL (L-VEIL), in cancer patients. Methods: Sixty-two patients who underwent standard VEIL ( n  = 15) or L-VEIL ( n  = 47) for treatment of lymph node metastasis were evaluated retrospectively from three centers in Brazil, Egypt, and India. Primary endpoint analyzed was conversion rate to open IL in the two groups, and the secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss, nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and postoperative complications. Results: The conversion rate to open IL was higher in L-VEIL compared with VEIL group (2% vs. 0%). Significantly lesser blood loss was reported with L-VEIL compared with VEIL (mean difference: 3.63 mL; P  = .01). Postoperative drain duration was significantly lower with L-VEIL (-4.34 days; P  < .05) than VEIL. The L-VEIL group had a higher number of lymph nodes without infiltration (mean difference: -0.48; P  = .02). Operative time, nodal yield, nodal positivity, and hospitalization duration were similar in both groups. Postoperative complications were higher in the L-VEIL versus VEIL group (35 vs. 11 cases). Lymphedema events were significantly higher with L-VEIL in comparison with VEIL (38.8% vs. 16.7%; P  = .03). Among patients with penile cancer, no significant difference was observed in outcomes obtained with VEIL and L-VEIL. Conclusion: As L-VEIL and VEIL approaches lead to comparable surgical outcomes, surgeons may choose either of these as per their convenience.