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
. 2024 Dec 18;6(1):e466.
doi: 10.1002/bco2.466. eCollection 2025 Jan.

Post-operative incidence of lymphedema after RARP with or without extended pelvic lymph node dissection in a cohort study

Andries Clinckaert  1 , Laura Ysenbaardt  2 , Annabel Bijnens  2 , Charlotte Van Calster  3 , Inge Geraerts  3 , Steven Joniau  2 , Nele Devoogdt  3 , Luc Bijnens  4 , Wouter Everaerts  1   2
Affiliations

Post-operative incidence of lymphedema after RARP with or without extended pelvic lymph node dissection in a cohort study

Andries Clinckaert et al. BJUI Compass. .

Abstract

Objectives: Lymphedema of the lower limbs and pubic area is a potential complication following extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The incidence of lymphedema after ePLND has not been systematically reported in the literature. This study aimed to determine the incidence of lymphedema, describe its clinical characteristics and identify specific risk factors in patients undergoing RARP with or without ePLND.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre between April 2016 and July 2020. Structured electronic case report forms (eCRFs) integrated into the electronic health record system were used to document intraoperative, perioperative and postoperative data. The primary endpoint was the incidence of lymphedema. Secondary endpoints included risk factors for and localization of the postoperative lymphedema.

Results: A total of 500 patients who underwent RARP were included, with 301 patients undergoing ePLND and 199 patients without any form of PLND. Median follow-up period was 18 (range 3-49) months. Seventy-eight out of 301 (26%) of patients who underwent ePLND developed lymphedema, compared to only 2 out of 199 (1%) patients without ePLND. In most patients (49/301, 16%), lymphedema was mild (grade 1), whereas 29 patients (10%) developed grade 2 lymphedema. Twenty-six patients (9%) received decongestive lymphatic therapy. The most frequent site of lymphedema occurrence were the lower (54%) and the upper legs (40%). The number of nodes removed during RARP was identified as a risk factor for post-operative lymphedema (OR 1.04; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In this cohort study, approximately one in four patients undergoing RARP with ePLND developed lower limb and/or midline oedema, whereas one in ten patients started decongestive lymphatic therapy for symptomatic lymphedema. These findings provide valuable information for patient counselling about the potential benefits and risks of ePLND.

Keywords: extended pelvic lymph node dissection; lymphedema; robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

In accordance with the standards for transparent disclosure, the following conflicts of interest are declared: Steven Joniau and Wouter Everaerts hold the position of Senior Clinical Researcher at the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO); Luc Bijnens holds stocks in various pharmaceutical companies not leading to a financial interest related to the subject matter of this research. All authors affirm their commitment to upholding objectivity and integrity in the research process, ensuring that these potential conflicts do not compromise the quality or impartiality of the findings presented.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Distribution of lymphedema.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Hermsen R, Wedick EBC, Vinken MJM, van Kalmthout LWM, Küsters‐Vandevelde HVN, Wijers CHW, et al. Lymph node staging with fluorine‐18 prostate specific membrane antigen 1007‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography in newly diagnosed intermediate‐ to high‐risk prostate cancer using histopathological evaluation of extended pelvic node dissection as reference. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(11):3929–3937. 10.1007/s00259-022-05827-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fossati N, Willemse PPM, van T, van R, Yuan C, Briers E, 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(1):84–109. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Executive Committee of the International Society of Lymphology . The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2020;53(1):3–19. 10.2458/lymph.4649 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu F, Liu N, Wang L, Chen J, Han L, Yu Z, et al. Treatment of secondary lower limb lymphedema after gynecologic cancer with complex decongestive therapy. Lymphology. 2022;54(3):122–132. 10.2458/LYMPH.4786 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keegan KA, Cookson MS. Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(3):203–208. 10.1007/S11934-011-0179-Z - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources