Advertisement

Pelvic Lymphadenectomy

  • Gerald Heulitt
  • James Porter
Chapter

Abstract

As the role of robotic surgery in urologic oncology has evolved, pelvic lymphadenectomy remains an important part of the staging of patients with prostate, bladder, and penile cancer. Complications associated with robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy are related to the proximity of the lymph nodes to major vascular, nerves, and lymphatic channels. The most common complication after pelvic lymphadnectomy is lymphocele formation and occurs due to incomplete control of lymphatic channels. The extent of lymphatic dissection correlates with lymphocele formation. Most lymphoceles are subclinical and do not require treatment; however, some may result in leg swelling, pelvic pain, or infection and require drainage. Vascular injury is rare during pelvic lymphadenectomy but can be repaired by experienced laparoscopic and robotic surgeons. The principles of gaining proximal and distal control of the injured vessel and precise repair are keys to successful outcomes. The obturator nerve is at risk for injury from cautery, clips, and traction during pelvic lymphadenectomy. Complete transection can be repaired by precise approximation of the epineural tissues using fine suture. Injury to the ureter can be avoided during pelvic lymphadenectomy by understanding that the ureter travels deep to the median umbilical ligament as it travels distally to the bladder.

Keywords

Lymphadenectomy Lymph node dissection Robotic surgery Lymphocele Vascular complications Obturator nerve 

References

  1. 1.
    Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, Haese A, Heidenreich A, Menon M, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):7–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pucheril D, Campbell L, Bauer RM, Montorsi F. A Clinician's guide to avoiding and managing common complications during and after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2(1):30–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Box GN, Lee HJ, Abraham JB, Deane LA, Elchico ER, Abdelshehid CA, et al. Comparative study of in vivo lymphatic sealing capability of the porcine thoracic duct using laparoscopic dissection devices. J Urol. 2009;181(1):387–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grande P, Di Pierro GB, Mordasini L, Ferrari L, Wurnschimmel C, Danuser H, Mattei A. Prospective randomized trial comparing titanium clips to bipolar coagulation in sealing lymphatic vessels during pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:155–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keskin MS, Argun OB, Obek C, Tufek I, Tuna MB, Mourmouris P, et al. The incidence and sequel of lymphocele formation after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int. 2016;118:127–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naselli A, Andreatta R, Introini C, Fontana V, Puppo P. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;75(3):630–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR. Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int. 2011;108(7):1185–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis JW, Shah JB, Achim M. Robotic-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy: a video based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection need. BJU Int. 2011;108:993–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolzenburg JU, Wasserscheid J, Rabenalt R, et al. Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration. World J Urol. 2008;26:581–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahrer A, Ramchandani P, Trerotola SO, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Itkin M. Sclerotherapy in the management of postoperative lymphocele. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(7):1050–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemal A, Goel A. External iliac vein injury and its repair during laparoscopic radical cystectomy. JSLS. 2004;8:81–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Safi K, Teber D, Moazen M, Anghel G, Maldonado R, Rassweiler J. Laparoscopic repair of external iliac artery transection during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endocrinol. 2006;20:237–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castillo OA, Peacock L, Vitagliano G, Pinto I, Portalier P. Laparoscopic repair of an iliac artery injury during radical cystoprostatectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008;18(3):315–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mues A, Box G, Abaza R. Robotic instrument insulation failure: initial report of a potential source of patient injury. Urologia. 2011;77:104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sotelo R, Nunez Bragayrac LA, Machuca V, Garza Cortes R, Azhar RA. Avoiding and managing vascular injury during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Ther Adv Urol. 2015;7(1):41–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taneja S. Chapter 40, complications of lymphadenectomy. In: Complications of urologic surgery-prevention and management. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2010. p. 464–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gozen AS, Aktoz T, Akin Y, Klein J, Rieker P, Rassweiler J. Is it possible to draw a risk map for obturator nerve injury during pelvic lymph node dissection? The Heilbronn experience and a review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(10):826–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spaliviero M, Steinberg AP, Kaouk JH, Desai MM, Hammert WC, Gill IS. Laparoscopic injury and repair of obturator nerve during radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2004;64(5):1030–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dias AR, Silva E, Silva A, Carvalho JP, Baracat EC, Favero G. Correction of iatrogenic injury of the obturator nerve during pelvic laparoscopic lymphadenectomy by the use of sural nerve grafts. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2014;10:16–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sakai T, Murata H, Hara T. A case of scrotal pain associated with genitofemoral nerve injury following cystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2016;32:150–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams SK, Rabbani F. Complications of lymphadenectomy in urologic surgery. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38(4):507–18–vii.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dinlenc CZ, Gerber E, Wagner JR. Ureteral reimplantation during robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172(3):905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abboudi H, Ahmed K, Royle J, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, N’Dow J. Ureteric injury: a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(2):108–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pridjian A, Myrick S, Zeltser I. Strangulated internal hernia behind the common iliac artery following pelvic lymph node dissection. Urology. 2015;86(5):e23–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Viktorin-Baier P, Randazzo M, Medugno C, John H. Internal hernia underneath an elongated external iliac artery: a complication after extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urol Case Rep. 2016;8:9–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghani KR, Hurwitz M, Menon M. Hem-o-lok clip causing small bowel obstruction after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2012;19(10):962–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologySwedish Urology Group, Swedish Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations