Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for stage I and II nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors

Guzzo, Thomas J.; Allaf, Mohamad E.

doi:10.1177/1756287209104830

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more recent study by Maldonado-Valadez et al [33] in 2007, reported no conversions in 17 patients and no intra- and postoperative complications. Nevertheless, L-RPLND after chemotherapy is a technically very demanding procedure, particularly in patients with SGCT and should only be attempted by surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience [35] .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Hillelsohn

Duty

Okhunov

et al. 2012

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesLaparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) was introduced over 20 years ago as a less invasive alternative to open node dissection. In this review we summarise the indications, surgical technique and outcomes of L-RPLND in the treatment of testicular cancer.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE using the terms ‘laparoscopy’, ‘laparoscopic’, ‘retroperitoneal lymph node dissection’, ‘RPLND’ and ‘testicular neoplasms’. Articles were selected on the basis of their relevance, study design and content, with an emphasis on more recent data.ResultsWe found 14 pertinent studies, which included >1300 patients who received either L-RPLND (515) or open RPLND (788). L-RPLND was associated with longer mean operative times (204 vs. 186 min), but shorter hospital stays (3.3 vs. 6.6 days) and lower complication rates (15.6% vs. 33%). Oncological outcomes were similar between L-RPLND and open RPLND, with local relapse rates of 1.3% and 1.4%, incidence of distal progression of 3.3% and 6.1%, biochemical failure in 0.9% and 1.1% and cure rates of 100% and 99.6%, respectively.ConclusionThere are no randomised controlled studies comparing L-RPLND with open RPLND. A review of case and comparative series showed similar perioperative and oncological outcomes. Patients undergoing L-RPLND on average have shorter hospital stays, a quicker return to normal activity and improved cosmesis.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Hillelsohn

Duty

Okhunov

et al. 2012

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Originally, Stephenson and Klein 13 reported that laparoscopic RPLND should be used only as a staging procedure and not as a therapeutic procedure. However, Guzzo and Allaf, 14 in their series, reported that laparoscopic RPLND can be accepted as a therapeutic option and not just used as a staging procedure. Albqami and Janetschek 4 demonstrated through an extensive quality of life study that patient satisfaction was higher with laparoscopic RPLND than with open RPLND.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supine Robotic-Assisted Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer

Santomauro

Stroup

L'Esperance

et al. 2014

CRSLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) using a lower abdominal approach for testicular cancer is an advanced and relatively new surgical technique. Herein we describe technical modifications, review benefits, and report our initial series. Methods: A retrospective review of 16 patients from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2012 who underwent robotic RPLND for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors was performed. Patients were positioned in 15°of Trendelenburg and tilted 15°to the right. An infraumbilical midline camera port, 3 robotic ports, and 2 assistant ports were placed in a lower abdominal configuration. Patient demographic and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Results: Twelve patients underwent staging, prospective nerve-sparing RPLNDs, and 4 underwent postchemotherapy RPLNDs. Mean age was 26.4 years with a mean body mass index of 27.4 kg/m 2. The cohort had a mean operative time of 357 minutes, mean estimated blood loss of 205 mL, mean hospital stay of 3.6 days, and mean postoperative morphine equivalent use of 47.1 mg. There were no conversions to open RPLND in this cohort. An average of 26.2 lymph nodes were sampled. Conclusions: Inferior approach for robotic RPLND enables a thorough dissection of the retroperitoneum, without repositioning, to meet oncologic goals. Further study to evaluate long-term outcomes is warranted.

show abstract

“…This procedure exhibits a faster recovery than traditional laparotomy as well as better oncological outcomes due to central ligation of the vessels and the extended lymphadectomy [2,3]. The challenge with laparoscopic CME is the exposure of the vessels at their roots, as there are many variations in the vascular anatomy of the right colon [4]. Here, we present an approach, a cranial plus medial-to-lateral method, to manage the vessels safely and effectively at their roots in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME.…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laparoscopy has been proven to be as good as the traditional technique in cancer control rates [1,2], with the known advantages of a laparoscopic procedure for, for example, better pain control, reduction of morbidity and length of hospital stay [3,4].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Left‐sided laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for a non‐seminomatous testicular tumour – a video vignette

Bernardi¹,

Mis²,

Troian³

et al. 2020

Colorectal Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

due to their lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes than perineal procedures [1,2]. Nevertheless, the ideal surgical technique is still controversial. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a successful nerve-sparing technique for the treatment of RP [3]. The current video (Video S1 in the online Supporting Information) presents the procedure of laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy for RP. The patient is a 37-year-old woman who was admitted via our outpatient clinic with the complaint of a long-standing bowel prolapse requiring manual reduction after every defaecation for the last year. On physical examination, the anal tone was normal and an Oxford Grade V RP was detected. A moderate rectocele was also detected on gynaecological examination. Colonoscopic examination was unremarkable. Magnetic resonance defaecography revealed oedema in the sigmoid colon and rectum, moderate rectal descent, pelvic floor dysfunction and dyssynergic defaecation. Given these findings, a laparoscopic rectopexy was planned. During the procedure, once the dissection was completed, a trimmed two-strip polypropylene mesh (15 cm long and 2 cm wide in each arm) was inserted. First, the mesh was secured to the promontory. Then, one strip was fixed to the anterior rectal wall and the second strip to the posterior wall of the vagina as a posterior colpopexy. The patient was discharged uneventfully on the third postoperative day. On follow-up at the tenth month there was no evidence of recurrence or any complication with regard to defaecatory, urinary or sexual function. Laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy is a novel combined procedure for the treatment of RP, especially in women with pelvic floor dysfunction.

show abstract

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for stage I and II nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors

Cited by 6 publications

References 35 publications

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Supine Robotic-Assisted Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer

Left‐sided laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for a non‐seminomatous testicular tumour – a video vignette

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About