Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan-Mar;38(1):15-21.
doi: 10.4103/iju.iju_387_21. Epub 2022 Jan 1.

Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review

Shreedhar Gurunathan Kandasamy  1 , Kosur Ravi Chandran  1 , Ginil Kumar Pooleri  1
Affiliations
Review

Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review

Shreedhar Gurunathan Kandasamy et al. Indian J Urol. 2022 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Introduction: Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic-assisted VEIL (R-VEIL). In this review, we aim to describe the techniques, case selection, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes of VEIL and R-VEIL and to compare it with open ILND.

Methods: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the articles for VEIL and R-VEIL. Using PRISMA guidelines, literature search yielded 3783 articles, of which 32 full-text articles relevant to the topic were selected and reviewed, after consensus from authors.

Results: After the first description of VEIL, various modifications in port placements and approaches were described. Several studies have shown, VEIL and R VEIL are safe and feasible in both node-negative and node-positive Ca penis patients. Compared to open ILND, VEIL had fewer wound infections and skin necrosis, minimal blood loss, shorter mean hospital stays, and reduced duration of drain kept. There is no difference in mean lymph node yield and recurrence rates between open ILND, VEIL, R-VEIL.

Conclusion: VEIL and R-VEIL are safe and have comparable oncological outcomes with open ILND.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Literature Search
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient position and port placement
Figure 3
Figure 3
Transillumination of the skin flap
Figure 4
Figure 4
View after lymphadenectomy
Figure 5
Figure 5
After specimen retrieval
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Montes Cardona CE, García-Perdomo HA. Incidence of penile cancer worldwide: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2017;41:e117. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vieira CB, Feitoza L, Pinho J, Teixeira-Júnior A, Lages J, Calixto J, et al. Profile of patients with penile cancer in the region with the highest worldwide incidence. Sci Rep. 2020;10:2965. - PMC - PubMed
    1. [Accessed Sept 11, 2020];Global Cancer Observatory. International Agency for Research on Cancer2020. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx .
    1. Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, Eisenberger MA, Greenberg RE, et al. Penile cancer: Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11:594–615. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, Vincent AD, Lucas C, Horenblas S. Early wound complications after inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: A historical cohort study and risk-factor analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64:486–92. - PubMed