Does the placement of a collagen-fibrin sealant reduce complications of radical inguinal lymph node dissection? - Comparative study in patients with penile cancer

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: Management of patients with penile cancer (PeC) with palpable inguinal lymph nodes (ILNs) relies on radical ILN dissection (RILND). Low burden of nodal metastatic disease may lead to long-lasting survival with surgical management. Nevertheless, RILND involves significant postoperative morbidity. We compared the complications of patients undergoing RILND with (RILND-T) and without (RILND-0T) placement of a collagen-fibrin sealant patch on the resection bed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective study. Data from men submitted to RILND-T and RILND-0T from Jan/2001 to Feb/2022, in a tertiary care centre were compared. The primary endpoint was the overall incidence of complications until 1 month after the procedure and their respective severity in both cohorts (Clavien-Dindo classification system). Secondarily, length of hospital stay (LOHS) was analysed. The placement of a collagen-fibrin sealant patch was left at the surgeon's discretion. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent RILND-T and 20 underwent RILND-0T, respectively. There were no differences in pathologic TNM stage nor in the total number of ILNs removed (17 ± 4 vs. 20 ± 8, p = 0.37). Overall, 23 (85.2%) patients had complications. The complication rate was similar in both cohorts (85.7% vs 85%, p = 0.73). Surgical wound infection (3/7 vs. 11/20) and lymphocele (4/7 vs. 11/20) were the most reported complications. Patients undergoing RILND-T were discharged faster (mean length of hospital stay 9 ± 3 vs 19 ± 20 days, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The application of a collagen-fibrin sealant patch on the resection bed does not seem to reduce the postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing RILND. Nevertheless, a trend towards a shorter LOHS in patients with RILND-T cannot be excluded and should be validated by further studies with a higher number of patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.