Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) represents the standard for detection of occult pelvic nodal metastases from prostate cancer, and may be performed separately from or at the time of radical prostatectomy. In addition to its potential for diagnostic staging, a PLND may be therapeutic in some patients. However, considerable debate centers on the appropriate candidates for the procedure, the extent and proper boundaries of dissection, optimal surgical approach, and absolute oncologic benefit. Several series suggest that there likely is limited benefit of PLND in low-risk patients and that PLND can be safely omitted in a high percentage of men undergoing contemporary radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, the value of PLND in patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease must be balanced against the potential morbidity of the procedure. In the setting of this debate, concern over morbidity directly attributable to this procedure is of paramount importance. This review focuses on the complications associated with PLND, including lymphocele, thromboembolic events, ureteral injury, nerve injury, vascular injury, and lymphedema.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently have been hihglighted as: • Of importance

  1. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, et al. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer. 2001;91:66–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, et al. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. NEJM. 1999;341:1781–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54:344–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. • Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1251–65. This is a comprehensive review of PLND for prostate cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kawakami J, Meng MV, Sadetsky N, et al. Changing patterns of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: Results from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2006;176:1382–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weight CJ, Reuther AM, Gunn PW, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse-free survival at 10 years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2008;71:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weckermann D, Goppelt M, Dorn R, et al. Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostate specific antigen level of < or = 10 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score of < or = 6, and their influence on PSA progression free survival after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;97:1173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patient with a serum PSA <10 ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy from prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2006;50:272–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Dhar NB, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of the multi-modality mapping study. Eur Urol. 2008;53:118–25. This is an important analysis demonstrating that a significant proportion of prostatic primary lymphatic landing sites lie outside even an extended node dissection.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klein EA, Kattan M, Stephenson A, et al. How many lymphadenectomies does it take to cure one patient? Eur Urol. 2008;53:13–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2009;182:2232–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mori N. Clinical and experimental studies on the so-called lymphocyst which develops after radical hysterectomy in cancer of the uterine cervix. J Jpn Obstet Gyencol Soc. 1955;2:178.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel A. Complications of lymphadenectomy. In: Taneja SS, Smith RB, Ehrlich RM, editors. Complications of urologic surgery- prevention and management 3 rd Edition. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2001. p. 370–85.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Solberg A, Angelsen A, Bergan U, et al. Frequency of lymphoceles after open and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37:218–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Loeb S, Partin AW, Schaeffer EM. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Rev Urol. 2010;12:20–4. This is a recent review that addressed complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Catalona WJ, Kadmon D, Crane D. Effect of mini-dose heparin on lymphocele formation following extraperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 1980;123:890–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Basinger GT, Gittes RF. Lymphocyst: ultrasound diagnosis and urologic management. J Urol. 1975;114:740.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MJ, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:145–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Musch M. Klevecka, Roggenbuck U, et al. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol. 2008;179:923–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167:1681–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1006–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fallick ML, Long JP. Laparoscopic marsupialization of lymphocele after laparoscopic lymph node dissection. J Endourol. 1996;10:533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Treiyer A, Haben B, Stark E, et al. Uni- vs. Multiloculated pelvic lymphoceles: different treatment of symptomatic pelvic lymphoceles after open radical retropubic prostatectomy. It Braz J Urol. 2009;35:164–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zorn KC, Katz MH, Bernstein A, et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urol. 2009;74:296–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nicolaides AN, Breddin HK, Fareed J, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. International consensus statement. J Vasc Biol. 2002;1:133–70.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Forrest JB, Clemens JQ, Finamore P, et al. AUA Best Practice Statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urologic surgery. J Uro. 2009;181:1170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R, et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies- Experience at the Charite’ hospital Berlin, campus Mitte. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1278–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ficarra V, Novara F, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kavoussi LR, Sosa E, Chandhoke P, et al. Complications of laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection. J Urol. 1993;149:322–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol. 1997;158:1891–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Katz DJ, Yee DS, Guilherme G, et al. 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. 2010;106:391–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB, et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010; epub

  34. Campbell SC, Klein EA, Levin HS, et al. Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. Urology. 1995;46:352–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

K. Keegan: none. Dr. Michael Cookson has served as a consultant for Endo Pharmaceuticals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, A-1302 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    K. A. Keegan & M. S. Cookson

Authors
  1. K. A. Keegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. S. Cookson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. S. Cookson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keegan, K.A., Cookson, M.S. Complications of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol Rep 12, 203–208 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0179-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0179-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation