nach oben

Erschienen in:

28.01.2023 | Scientific Review

Assessment and Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events and Complications in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma, Vulvar Cancer, and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

verfasst von: Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Luis G. Medina, Aref S. Sayegh, Anibal La Riva, Laura C. Perez, Michael B. Eppler, Inderbir Gill, Rene Sotelo, the Complications and Adverse Events in Lymphadenectomy of the Inguinal Area (CALI) project, the International Consensus Panel on Complications in Urology (ICPCU), and the Intraoperative Complications assessment and reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration

Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) plays a crucial role in the oncological management of patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer. This study aims to systematically evaluate perioperative adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing ILND and its reporting.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were queried to identify studies discussing perioperative AEs in patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer following ILND.

Results

Our search generated 3.469 publications, with 296 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Details of 14.421 patients were analyzed. Of these studies, 58 (19.5%) described intraoperative AEs (iAEs) as an outcome of interest. Overall, 68 (2.9%) patients reported at least one iAE. Postoperative AEs were reported in 278 studies, combining data on 10.898 patients. Overall, 5.748 (52.7%) patients documented ≥1 postoperative AEs. The most reported ILND-related AEs were lymphatic AEs, with a total of 4.055 (38.8%) events. The pooled meta-analysis confirmed that high BMI (RR 1.09; p = 0.006), ≥1 comorbidities (RR 1.79; p = 0.01), and diabetes (RR 1.81; p = < 0.00001) are independent predictors for any AEs after ILND. When assessing the quality of the AEs reporting, we found 25% of studies reported at least 50% of the required criteria.

Conclusion

ILND performed in melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer patients is a morbid procedure. The quality of the AEs reporting is suboptimal. A more standardized AEs reporting system is needed to produce comparable data across studies for furthering the development of strategies to decrease AEs.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1):7–33CrossRefPubMed

Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, Eisenberger MA, Greenberg RE et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11(5):22

Greer BE, Koh WJ (2016) New NCCN Guidelines for Vulvar Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14(5S):656–658PubMedCrossRef

Swetter SM, Thompson JA, Albertini MR, Barker CA, Baumgartner J, Boland G et al (2021) NCCN Guidelines® insights: melanoma: cutaneous, Version 2.2021: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(4):364–376PubMedCrossRef

Matin SF, Cormier JN, Ward JF, Pisters LL, Wood CG, Dinney CPN et al (2013) Phase 1 prospective evaluation of the oncological adequacy of robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma: robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy. BJU Int 111(7):1068–1074PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Catalona WJ (1988) Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 140(2):306–310PubMedCrossRef

Bishoff JT, Du K (2018) Endoscopic subcutaneous modified inguinal lymph node dissection for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. In: Smith AD, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR, Badlani GH, Rastinehad AR (eds) Smith’s textbook of endourology [Internet]. Chichester, UK: Wiley [cited 2022 Jul 11]. 1060–1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119245193.ch90

Sotelo R, Sánchez-Salas R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Mariano M, Neiva G et al (2007) Endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma. J Endourol 21(4):364–367PubMedCrossRef

Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, Espiritu PN, Horenblas S, Zhu Y et al (2015) Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer in an international multicentre cohort. BJU Int 116(2):196–201PubMedCrossRef

10.

Martin RCG, Brennan MF, Jaques DP (2002) Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 235(6):803–813PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

11.

Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M (2012) Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 61(2):341–349PubMedCrossRef

12.

Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG et al (2016) PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 1:i157CrossRef

13.

Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, Ortega D, Gill K, Dell’Oglio P et al (2021) Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 4(2):134–149PubMedCrossRef

14.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Review 8:336–341

15.

Dell’Oglio P, Andras I, Ortega D, Galfano A, Artibani W, Autorino R et al (2021) Impact of the implementation of the EAU guidelines recommendation on reporting and grading of complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 80(2):129–133PubMedCrossRef

16.

Tellini R, Mari A, Muto G, Cacciamani GE, Ferro M, Stangl-Kremser J et al (2021) Impact of smoking habit on perioperative morbidity in patients treated with radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 4(4):580–593PubMedCrossRef

17.

Nassiri N, Maas M, Basin M, Cacciamani GE, Doumanian LR (2021) Urethral complications after gender reassignment surgery: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res 33(8):793–800CrossRef

18.

Cacciamani GE, Tafuri A, Iwata A, Iwata T, Medina L, Gill K et al (2020) Quality assessment of intraoperative adverse event reporting during 29 227 robotic partial nephrectomies: a systematic review and cumulative analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 3(6):780–783PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Tafuri A, Gill T, Baccaglini W, Blasic V et al (2020) Impact of implementation of standardized criteria in the assessment of complication reporting after robotic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 6(3):513–517PubMedCrossRef

20.

Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP et al (2019) Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Editorial Unit, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019 Oct 3 [cited 2022 Jul 11]; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142

21.

Cacciamani GE, Sholklapper T, Dell’Oglio P, Rocco B, Annino F, Antonelli A et al (2022) The intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards (ICARUS) global surgical collaboration project: development of criteria for reporting adverse events during surgical procedures and evaluating their impact on the postoperative course. Eur Urol Focus 8:1847–1858PubMedCrossRef

22.

Cacciamani G, Sholklapper T, Sotelo R, Desai M, Gill I (2021) A protocol for the development of the intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards criteria: the ICARUS project. Int J Surg Protoc 25(1):160–164PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

23.

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196PubMedCrossRef

24.

Kaafarani HMA, Mavros MN, Hwabejire J, Fagenholz P, Yeh DD, Demoya M et al (2014) Derivation and validation of a novel severity classification for intraoperative adverse events. J Am Coll Surg 218(6):1120–1128PubMedCrossRef

25.

Biyani CS, Pecanka J, Rouprêt M, Jensen JB, Mitropoulos D (2020) Intraoperative Adverse Incident Classification (EAUiaiC) by the European association of urology ad hoc complications guidelines panel. Eur Urol 77(5):601–610PubMedCrossRef

26.

Dell-Kuster S, Gomes NV, Gawria L, Aghlmandi S, Aduse-Poku M, Bissett I et al (2020) Prospective validation of classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra): international, multicentre cohort study. BMJ 25:m2917CrossRef

27.

On behalf of the EAES committees, Francis NK, Curtis NJ, Conti JA, Foster JD, Bonjer HJ et al (2018) EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 32(9):3822–3829CrossRef

28.

Cacciamani GE (2022) Intraoperative adverse events grading tools and their role in honest and accurate reporting of surgical outcomes. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.04.029CrossRefPubMed

29.

Soliman C, Mulholland CJ, Santaguida P, Sathianathen NJ, Lawrentschuk N, Giannarini G et al (2022) Protocol for CAMUS Delphi study: a consensus on comprehensive reporting and grading of complications after urological surgery. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.016CrossRefPubMed

30.

ICARUS Classification System Working Group, Cacciamani GE, Sholklapper TN, Dell-Kuster S, Biyani CS, Francis N et al (2022) Assessing, grading, and reporting intraoperative adverse events during and after surgery. Br J Surg 109(4):301–302CrossRef

31.

Enrico Cacciamani G, Sholklapper T, Dell-Kuster S, Biyani SC, Francis N, Kaafarani HM et al (2022) Standardizing the intraoperative adverse events assessment to create a positive culture of reporting errors in surgery and anesthesiology. Ann Surg 276(2):e75–e76PubMed

32.

Artibani W (2018) what you measure depends on the tool you use: a short step from incorrect measurements to fake data. Eur Urol 74(1):8–9PubMedCrossRef

33.

Document C. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 consensus document of the international society of lymphology. Lymphology [Internet]. 2020 Jun 2 [cited 2022 Apr 6];53(1). Available from: https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/lymph/article/id/4649/

34.

Cormier JN, Askew RL, Mungovan KS, Xing Y, Ross MI, Armer JM (2010) Lymphedema beyond breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer-related secondary lymphedema. Cancer 116(22):5138–5149PubMedCrossRef

35.

Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Doi K, Oshima A, Yoshimatsu H, Todokoro T et al (2011) Indocyanine green-enhanced lymphography for upper extremity lymphedema: a novel severity staging system using dermal backflow patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(4):941–947PubMedCrossRef

36.

Yamamoto T, Matsuda N, Doi K, Oshima A, Yoshimatsu H, Todokoro T et al (2011) The earliest finding of indocyanine green lymphography in asymptomatic limbs of lower extremity lymphedema patients secondary to cancer treatment: the modified dermal backflow stage and concept of subclinical lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(4):314e-e321PubMedCrossRef

37.

Leone A, Diorio GJ, Pettaway C, Master V, Spiess PE (2017) Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis. Nat Rev Urol 14(6):335–347PubMedCrossRef

38.

Rabe E, Partsch H, Hafner J, Lattimer C, Mosti G, Neumann M et al (2018) Indications for medical compression stockings in venous and lymphatic disorders: an evidence-based consensus statement. Phlebol J Venous Dis 33(3):163–184CrossRef

39.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common terminology criteria for adverse events. Version 5.0

40.

Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Molina WR Jr, Forseto PH Jr, Juliano RV, Wroclawski ER (2006) Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): minimally invasive resection of inguinal lymph nodes. Int Braz J Urol 32(3):316–321PubMedCrossRef

41.

Loughlin KR (2006) Surgical atlas surgical management of penile carcinoma: the inguinal nodes. BJU Int 97(5):1125–1134PubMedCrossRef

42.

Koifman L, Hampl D, Koifman N, Vides AJ, Ornellas AA (2013) Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol 190(6):2086–2092PubMedCrossRef

43.

Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA (2002) COntemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson cancer center experience. Comparative study 167(4):1638–42

44.

Spiess PE, Hernandez MS, Pettaway CA (2009) Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol 27(2):205–212PubMedCrossRef

45.

Sood A, Rudzinski JK, Spiess PE, Pettaway CA (2022) The acute complications after surgery for penile carcinoma and strategies for their management: a systematic review of the literature. Semin Oncol Nurs 38(3):151285PubMedCrossRef

46.

Solar IN, Gipponi MA, Franco DSCRI, Rè FE, Sonia O, Bertog Lio S et al (2016) Videoscopic Inguinal-iliac-obturator lymph-node dissection: new videoscopic technique for regional lymphadenectomy in patients with Melanom. Anticancer Res 36(12):6579–84

47.

Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Silva MNR, Molina WR Jr, Forseto PH, Juliano RV et al (2008) Can Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy achieve a lower morbidity than open lymph node dissection in penile cancer patients? J Endourol 22(8):1687–1692PubMedCrossRef

48.

Kumar V, Sethia KK (2017) Prospective study comparing video-endoscopic radical inguinal lymph node dissection (VEILND) with open radical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over an 8-year period. BJU Int 119(4):530–534PubMedCrossRef

49.

Nabavizadeh R, Petrinec B, Necchi A, Tsaur I, Albersen M, Master V (2020) Utility of minimally invasive technology for inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer. J Clin Med 9(8):2501PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Renner P, Torzewski M, Zeman F, Babilas P, Kroemer A, Schlitt HJ et al (2017) Increasing morbidity with extent of lymphadenectomy for primary malignant melanoma. Lymphat Res Biol 15(2):146–152PubMedCrossRef

51.

Faut M, Heidema RM, Hoekstra HJ, van Ginkel RJ, Been SLB, Kruijff S et al (2017) Morbidity after inguinal lymph node dissections: it is time for a change. Ann Surg Oncol 24(2):330–339PubMedCrossRef

52.

Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, Vincent AD, Lucas C, Horenblas S (2013) Early wound complications after inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a historical cohort study and risk-factor analysis. Eur Urol 64(3):486–492PubMedCrossRef

53.

Sars C, Gillgren P, Schultz I, Lindqvist EK (2020) Risk factors for complications and long-term outcomes following completion lymph node dissection for cutaneous melanoma: a retrospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 73(8):1540–1546PubMedCrossRef

54.

Wevers KP, Poos HPAM, van Ginkel RJ, van Etten B, Hoekstra HJ (2013) Early mobilization after ilio-inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma does not increase the wound complication rate. Eur J Surg Oncol EJSO 39(2):185–190PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Assessment and Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events and Complications in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma, Vulvar Cancer, and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
verfasst von: Giovanni E. Cacciamani
Luis G. Medina
Aref S. Sayegh
Anibal La Riva
Laura C. Perez
Michael B. Eppler
Inderbir Gill
Rene Sotelo
the Complications and Adverse Events in Lymphadenectomy of the Inguinal Area (CALI) project, the International Consensus Panel on Complications in Urology (ICPCU), and the Intraoperative Complications assessment and reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration
Publikationsdatum: 28.01.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06882-6

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Assessment and Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events and Complications in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma, Vulvar Cancer, and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis