Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy and perioperative outcomes of limited versus extended pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



We conducted a retrospective study to compare the perioperative course and lymph node (LN) counts of patients undergoing limited pelvic lymphadenectomy (lPLND) or extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in an initial Japanese series.


The cohort included 1333 patients who underwent either lPLND (n = 902) or ePLND (n = 431) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at five institutions in Japan. All complications within 28 days of surgery were recorded, and clinical data were collected retrospectively. The outcomes and complications were compared relative to the extent of lymphadenectomy, and we conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess the predictors of the major complications.


On multivariate analysis for evaluating the associations between major complications and perioperative characteristics, console time (p = 0.001) was significantly associated with major complications, although the extent of lymphadenectomy (p = 0.272) was not significantly associated with major complications. In the distribution of positive LNs removed in the extended pelvic lymphadenectomy cohort, 60.4% of patients had positive LNs only in the obturator/internal iliac region. However, 22.6% of the patients with positive LNs had no positive LNs in the obturator/internal iliac region, but only in the external/common iliac region.


ePLND, which significantly increased the console time and blood loss but nearly quadrupled the lymph node yield, is considered a relatively safe and acceptable procedure. Moreover, the results of this study suggest that ePLND improves staging and removes a greater number of metastatic nodes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P et al (2008) 11C-Choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 54:392–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM et al (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 63:387–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B et al (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 8:162–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang EH, Yu JB, Gross CP et al (2015) Variation in pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy by hospital characteristics and surgical approach: results from the National Cancer Database. J Urol 193:820–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A et al (2014) Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European institutions. Eur Urol 66:635–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF et al (2009) Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 55:261–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ et al (2006) The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 175:1320–1324

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Joslyn SA, Konety BR (2006) Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 68:121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R (2002) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 167:1681–1686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feifer AH, Elkin EB, Lowrance WT et al (2011) Temporal trends and predictors of pelvic lymph node dissection in open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Cancer (Phila) 117:3933–3942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N et al (2008) Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 180:904–909

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A et al (2014) Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications–a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 65:7–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R et al (2012) Lymph node count threshold for optimal pelvic lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19:645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R et al (2013) Standardized comparison of robot-assisted limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Poel HG, de Blok W, Tillier C et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: nodal dissection results during the first 440 cases by two surgeons. J Endourol 26:1618–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz DJ, Yee DS, Godoy G et al (2010) Lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparison of lymph node yield and clinical outcomes when including common iliac nodes with standard template dissection. BJU Int 106:391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Davis JW, Shah JB, Achim M (2011) Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs. BJU Int 108:993–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP et al (2013) Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 31:481–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S et al (2011) Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 108:1185–1190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P (1997) Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol 158:1891–1894

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS et al (2003) Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169:145–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2006) Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:1006–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eden CG, Arora A, Rouse P (2010) Extended vs. standard pelvic lymphadenectomy during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 106:537–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yuen K, Miura T, Sakai I (2015) Intraoperative fluorescence imaging for detection of sentinel lymph nodes and lymphatic vessels during open prostatectomy using indocyanine green. J Urol 194:371–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masashi Honda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No author has any conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morizane, S., Honda, M., Fukasawa, S. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy and perioperative outcomes of limited versus extended pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol 23, 568–575 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: