Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Lymphocele (LC) is the most common adverse sequela of pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Current evidence on comparison between robotic (RARP) and open retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in terms of the development of symptomatic LCs (SLCs) is conflicting. Moreover, no single-center assessment has illuminated the impact of the anterior vs. posterior approach of RARP on the rate of SLCs yet. We aimed to compare RRP and transperitoneal RARP for the SLC development and associated clinical risk factors.

Methods

Patients treated with RRP or transperitoneal RARP (both with standard PLND) were included. Univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized to compare the cohorts and define independent predictive variables for the development of SLCs.

Results

Five hundred and ninety-five consecutive PCa patients underwent RRP and 277 ones RARP (76 anterior and 201 posterior approaches). The incidence of SLCs did not differ between both cohorts. Age and lymph node yield were independent predictors for the development of SLCs after RRP. There was a trend for a longer median time to development of SLCs after RARP as compared to RRP. Median duration of percutaneous drainage tended to be higher after RRP then after RARP. Failure rate of lymphocele drainage was comparable between both techniques.

Conclusions

RRP and RARP are associated with the same risk for the development of a SLC. Posterior approach does not reduce the SLC formation compared to the anterior technique. Patients’ age and LN yield are predictive for the SLC occurrence in patients treated with RRP.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anheuser P, Treiyer A, Stark E, Haben B, Steffens JA (2010) Lymphoceles after radical retropubic prostatectomy. A treatment algorithm. Urol A 49(7):832–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-010-2318-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, Haese A, Heidenreich A, Menon M, Sulser T, Tewari AK, Eastham JA (2014) Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 65(1):7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Solberg A, Angelsen A, Bergan U, Haugen OA, Viset T, Klepp O (2003) Frequency of lymphoceles after open and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 37(3):218–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zorn KC, Katz MH, Bernstein A, Shikanov SA, Brendler CB, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL (2009) Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology 74(2):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Capitanio U, Pellucchi F, Gallina A, Briganti A, Suardi N, Salonia A, Abdollah F, Di Trapani E, Jeldres C, Cestari A, Karakiewicz PI, Montorsi F (2011) How can we predict lymphorrhoea and clinically significant lymphocoeles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy? Clinical implications. BJU Int 107(7):1095–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09580.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liss MA, Skarecky D, Morales B, Osann K, Eichel L, Ahlering TE (2013) Preventing perioperative complications of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 81(2):319–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.033

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Naselli A, Andreatta R, Introini C, Fontana V, Puppo P (2010) Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology 75(3):630–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR (2011) Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 108(7):1185–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10094.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khoder WY, Trottmann M, Buchner A, Stuber A, Hoffmann S, Stief CG, Becker AJ (2011) Risk factors for pelvic lymphoceles post-radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 18(9):638–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02797.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee HJ, Kane CJ (2014) How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 15(10):445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0445-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crawford ED, Batuello JT, Snow P, Gamito EJ, McLeod DG, Partin AW, Stone N, Montie J, Stock R, Lynch J, Brandt J (2000) The use of artificial intelligence technology to predict lymph node spread in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 88(9):2105–2109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, Kimm S, Menon M, Novara G, Tewari A, Touijer K, Wilson T, Zorn KC, Eggener SE (2014) The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 65(5):918–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang SL, Kibel AS, Brooks JD, Chung BI (2015) The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int 115(6):929–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Akand M, Erdogru T, Avci E, Ates M (2015) Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective single surgeon randomized comparative study. Int J Urol 22(10):916–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Semerjian A, Pavlovich CP (2017) Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: indications, technique and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 18(6):42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0689-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas C, van de Plas J, Tsaur I, Neisius A, Bartsch G, Frees S, Borgmann H, Jäger W, Brandt MP, Haferkamp A, Rubenwolf P (2017) Incidence, risk factors and management of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Pract 4(6):493–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2016.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gillitzer R, Thuroff JW, Neisius A, Wollner J, Hampel C (2009) Robot-assisted ascending-descending laparoscopic nerve-sparing prostatectomy. BJU Int 104(1):128–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08723.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamada A, Hwang C, Fleisher J, Tuerk I (2017) Microbiological evaluation of infected pelvic lymphocele after robotic prostatectomy: potential predictors for culture positivity and selection of the best empirical antimicrobial therapy. Int Urol Nephrol 49(7):1183–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1599-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker L, Wirth MP (2013) Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 90(3):312–315. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grande P, Di Pierro GB, Mordasini L, Ferrari M, Wurnschimmel C, Danuser H, Mattei A (2017) 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 71(2):155–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stolzenburg JU, Kyriazis I, Liatsikos E (2017) Postoperative lymphocele formation after pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy should not be considered an inevitable consequence of the approach. Eur Urol 71(2):159–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(6 Pt 2):993–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10454.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palapattu GS, Allaf ME, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2004) Prostate specific antigen progression in men with lymph node metastases following radical prostatectomy: results of long-term followup. J Urol 172(5 Pt 1):1860–1864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cai J, Pinski J, Skinner EC, Skinner DG (2004) Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol 172(6 Pt 1):2252–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Cowan JE, Carroll PR (2010) Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 105(1):88–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08699.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Polcari AJ, Hugen CM, Sivarajan G, Woods ME, Paner GP, Flanigan RC, Quek ML (2009) Comparison of open and robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Endourol 23(8):1313–1317. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, Hruby GW, Turk AT, Badani KK (2010) Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol 24(7):1055–1060. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gandaglia G, Trinh QD, Hu JC, Schiffmann J, Becker A, Roghmann F, Popa I, Tian Z, Perrotte P, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, Abdollah F (2014) The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the “post-dissemination” period. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(9):1080–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.12.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Suardi N, Larcher A, Haese A, Ficarra V, Govorov A, Buffi NM, Walz J, Rocco B, Borghesi M, Steuber T, Pini G, Briganti A, Mottrie AM, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Pushkar D, Van Der Poel H (2014) Indication for and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis of five European institutions. Eur Urol 66(4):635–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keskin MS, Argun OB, Obek C, Tufek I, Tuna MB, Mourmouris P, Erdogan S, Kural AR (2016) The incidence and sequela of lymphocele formation after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 118(1):127–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz EW, Voge D, Riedmiller H (1996) Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 156(6):1969–1971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bochner BH, Cho D, Herr HW, Donat M, Kattan MW, Dalbagni G (2004) Prospectively packaged lymph node dissections with radical cystectomy: evaluation of node count variability and node mapping. J Urol 172(4 Pt 1):1286–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jeroen van de Plas for data acquisition. This study is part of the doctoral thesis of Stefanie Ziewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Mainz University Medicine, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Christian Thomas, Stefanie Ziewers, Anita Thomas, Robert Dotzauer, Georg Bartsch, Axel Haferkamp & Igor Tsaur

  2. Department of Urology, University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Christian Thomas

Authors
  1. Christian Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Ziewers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anita Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Dotzauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georg Bartsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Axel Haferkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Igor Tsaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Tsaur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomas, C., Ziewers, S., Thomas, A. et al. Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 51, 633–640 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02103-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02103-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation