Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Inguinal Lymphadenectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Malignancies of the Groin

  • 711 Accesses

Abstract

The urologic oncology literature has supported a more aggressive use of inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with high-risk penile cancer. Lymphadenectomy provides important staging that may determine the need for further adjuvant therapies and may prove therapeutic in some tumors. However, surgical morbidity can be a significant problem after radical inguinal lymph node dissection. Wound infection, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, and lymphedema have been reported in a high portion of cases. Modified approaches and development of new techniques have reduced the incidence of these complications. This chapter provides an overview of complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer and outlines strategies that may be helpful in preventing or treating these complications.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

DVT:

Deep vein thrombosis

ILND:

Inguinal lymph node dissection

LND:

Lymph node dissection

PE:

Pulmonary embolism, endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy

References

  1. Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Maldonado JL, Pow-sang J, Guiliano AR. Incidence trends in primary malignant penile cancer. Urol Oncol. 2007;25:361–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Koifman L, Vides AJ, Koifman N Further oblique branches arise from the perforator which do not contribute to the fascial plexus and instead travel directly toward the skin to form part of the subdermal plexus.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Solsona E, Tana S, Van Der Pel H, et al. European association of urology guidelines group on penile C: EAU penile cancer guidelines. Eur Urol. 2010;57:1002–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson DE, Lo RK. Complications of groin dissection in penile cancer. Experience with 101 lymphadenectomies. Urology. 1984;24:312–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, de Moraes JR. Analysis of 200 lymphadenectomies in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 1991;72:941–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ravi R. Morbidity following groin dissection for penile carcinoma. Br J Urol. 1993;72:941–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kamat MR, Kulkarni JN, Tongaonkar HB. Carcinoma of the penis: the Indian experience. J Surg Oncol. 1993;52:50–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Colberg JW, Andriole GL, Catalona WJ. Long term follow up of men undergoing modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis. Br J Urol. 1997;79:54–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jain PK, Sowdi R, Anderson AD, Macfie J. Randomized clinical trial investigating the use of drains and fibrin sealant following surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2004;91:54–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Catalona WJ. Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol. 1988;140:306–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA. Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Urol. 2002;167:1638–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F, Hetet JF, Karam G. Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004;45:761–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Catalona WJ. Role of lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 1980;7:785–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:97–132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crawford ED, Daneshgari F. Management of regional lymphatic drainage in carcinoma of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 1992;19:305–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, Espiritu PN, Horenblas S, Zhu Y, et al. Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer in an international multicenter cohort. BJUI Int. 2015;116:196–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koifman LK, Hampl D, Koifman N, Vides AJ, Ornellas AA. Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol. 2013;190:2086–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsaur I, Biegel C, Gust K, Huesch T, Borgmann H, Brandt MP, et al. Feasibility, complications and oncologic results of a limited inguinal lymph node dissection in the management of penile cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41:486–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR. Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yao K, Hua T, Li YH, Qin ZK, Liu ZW, Zhou FJ, et al. Modified technique of radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: morbidity and outcome. J Urol. 2010;184:546–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Puras-Baez A, Rivera-Herrera J, Miranda G. Role of superficial inguinal lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 1995;153:246A.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Novara G, Galfano A, De Marco V, et al. Prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;4:140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Coblentz TR, Theodorescu D. Morbidity of modified prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2002;168:1386–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Milathianakis C, Bogdanos J, Karamanolakis D. Morbidity of prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy with saphenous vein preservation for squamous cell penile carcinoma. Int J Urol. 2005;12:776–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spiess PE, Hernandez MS, Pettaway CA. Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol. 2009;27:205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nelson BA, Cookson MS, Smith JA, Chang SS. Complications of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a contemporary series. J Urol. 2004;172:494–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pompeo A, Mesquita J, WA J. Staged inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis: 13 year prospective study in 50 patients. J Urol. 1995;153:246A.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy in penile cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38:459–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lopes A, Hidalgo GS, Kowalski LP, et al. Prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 1996;156:1637–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bouchot O, Bouvier S, Bochereau G, et al. Cancer of the penis: the value of systemic biopsy of the superficial inguinal lymph nodes in clinical N0 stage patients. Prog Urol. 1993;3:228–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Darai E, Karaitianos I, Durand JC. Treatment of inguinal lymph nodes in cancer of the penis. Apropos of 85 cases treated at the Institute Curie. Ann Chir. 1988;42:748–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alexander JW, Fischer JE, Boyajian M, Palmquist J, Morris MJ. The influence of hair-removal methods on wound infections. Arch Surg. 1983;118:347–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Balthazar ER, Colt JD, Nichols RL. Preoperative hair removal: a random prospective study of shaving versus clipping. South Med J. 1982;75:799–801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Anaya DA, Dellinger EP. The obese surgical patient: a susceptible host for infection. Surg Infect. 2006;7:473–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Baronofsky ID. Technique of inguinal node dissection. Surgery. 1948;24:555.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Woodhall JP. Radical groin surgery with particular reference to postoperative healing. Surgery. 1953;33:886–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tonouchi H, Ohmori Y, Kobayashi M, Konishi N, Tanaka K, Mohri Y et al. Operative morbidity associated with groin dissections. Surg Today 34; 413–418.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Spratt JS, Shieber W, Dillard BM. Groin dissection. In:Anatomy and surgical technique of groin dissection. St Louis, IL: CV Mosby Company; 1965. p. 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Spratt J. Groin dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2000;73:243–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Judson PL, Jonson AL, Paley PJ, et al. A prospective, randomized study analyzing sartorius transposition following inguinal-femoral lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 1: diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. BJU Int. 2001;88:467–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Puras-Baez A. Indications for lymph node dissection in the patient with penile cancer. AUA News. 2000;5:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smith JA, Middleton RG. The use of fluorescein in radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 1979;122:754–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Crawford ED. Radical ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1984;11:543–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Horenblas S, et al. Early wound complications after inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a historical cohort study and risk factor analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64:486–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang X, Sheng X, Niu J, Li H, Li D, Tang L, et al. Sparing of saphenous vein during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:722–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bare RL, Assimos DG, McCullough DL, Smith DP, DeFranzo AJ, Marks MW. Inguinal lymphadenectomy and primary groin reconstruction using rectus abdominis muscle flaps in patients with penile cancer. Urology. 1994;44:557–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Abbas S, Seitz M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the used surgical techniques to reduce leg lymphedema following radical inguinal nodes dissection. Surg Oncol. 2011;17:2764–72.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rouzier R, Haddad B, Dubernard G, Dubois P, Paniel B. Inguinofemoral dissection for carcinoma of the vulva: effect of modifications of extent and technique on morbidity and survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:442–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Benoit L, Boichot C, Cheynel N, Arnould L, Chauffert B, Cuisenier J, et al. Preventing lymphedema and morbidity with an omentum flap after ilioinguinal lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:793–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Egorov YS, Abalmasov KG, Ivanov KG, Abramov YA, Gainolin RM, Chatterjee SS, et al. Autotransplantation of the great omentum in the treatment of chronic lymphedema. Lymphology. 1994;27:137–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Longmans A, Kruyt RH, deBruin HG, Cox PH, Pillay M, Trimbos JB. Lymphedema and lymphocysts following lymphadenectomy may be prevented by omentoplasty: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;75:323–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lawton G, Rasque H, Aryan S. Preservation of muscle fascia to decrease lymphedema after complete axillary and ilioinguinofemoral lymphadenectomy for melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:339–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Daseler EH, Anson BH, Reimann AF. Radical excision of the inguinal and iliac lymph glands: a study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1948;87:679.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Orefice S, Conti AR, Grass M, et al. The use of lympho-venous anastomoses to prevent complications from ilio-inguinal dissection. Tumori. 1988;30:347–51.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gallo Rolanio FJ, Beneitez Alvarez ME, Izquierdo Garcia FM. The role of inguinal lymphadenectomy in epidermoid carcinoma of the penis: use of a ligasure and analysis of the results. Arch Esp Urol. 2002;55:535–8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Carlson JW, Kauderer J, Walker JL, Gold MA, O’Malley D, Tuller E, et al. A randomized phase III trial of VH fibrin sealant to reduce lymphedema after inguinal lymph node dissection: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:76–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Carless PA, Henry DA. Systematic review and meta analysis of the use of fibrin sealant to prevent seroma formation after breast cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2006;93:810–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Protzel C, Alcaraz A, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Zlotta A, Hakenberg OW. Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1075–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2003;3:84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Johnson G Jr, Kupper C, Farrar DJ, Swallow RT. Graded compression stockings: custom vs noncustom. Arch Surg. 1983;117:69–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Box RC, Reul Hirche HM, Bullock-Saxton JE, Furnival CM. Physiotherapy after breast cancer surgery: results of a randomized controlled study to minimize lymphedema. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;27:2007–14.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Torres Lacoma M, Yuste Sanchez MJ, Zapico Goni A, Prieto Merino D, Mayoral del Moral O, Cerezo Tellez E, et al. Effectiveness of early physiotherapy to prevent lymphedema after surgery for breast cancer: randomized, single blinded, clinical trial. BMJ. 2010;340:b5396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Seddon HJ. Three types of nerve injury. Brain. 1943;66:237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yossepowitch O, Bochner BH. Complications of Lymphadenectomy. In: Taneja S, editor. Complications of urologic surgery: prevention and management. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elservier; 2010. p. 463–77.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Garfein ES, Borud LJ, Warren AG, Slavin SA. Learning from a lymphedema clinic: an algorithm for the management of localized swelling. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:521–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, Slavin SA. Lymphedema: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;59:464–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Malone PC, Agutter PS. The etiology of deep venous thrombosis. QJM. 2006;99:581–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ettema HB, Kollen BJ, Verheyen CC, Buller HR. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with immobilization of the lower extremity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6:1093.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Williams SK, Rabbani F. Complications of lymphadenectomy in urologic surgery. Urol Clin N Am. 2011;38:507–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhou XL, Zhang JF, Zhang JF, Zhou SJ, Yuan XQ. Endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma and genital malignancy: a preliminary report. J Endourol. 2013;27:657–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Silva MN, Molina WR, Forseto PH, Juliano RV, et al. Can video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy achieve a lower morbidity than open lymph node dissection in penile cancer patients? J Endourol. 2008;8:1687–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Master VA, Jafri SM, Moses KA, Ogan K, Kooby DA, Delman KA. Minimally invasive inguinal lymphadenectomy via endoscopic groin dissection: comprehensive assessment of immediate and long term complications. J Urol. 2012;188:1176–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Master V, Ogan K, Kooby D, Hsiao W, Delman K. Leg endoscopic groin lymphadenectomy (LEG procedure): step-by-step approach to a straightforward technique. Eur Urol. 2009;56:821–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Pahwa HS, Misra S, Kumar A, Kumar V, Agarwal A, Srivastava R. Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) – a prospective critical perioperative assessment of feasibility and morbidity with points of technique in penile carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Astigueta J, Abad-Licham M, Silva E, Yan E, Álvarez H, Agreda F, et al. Endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: case report and literature review. E Cancer Med Sci. 2015;9:576.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Josephson DY, Jacobsohn KM, Link BA, Wilson TG. Robotic-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy. Urology. 2009;73:167–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Matin SF, Cormier JN, Ward J, Pisters JF, Wood CW, Dinney CP, Royal RE, et al. Phase 1 prospective evaluation of the oncological adequacy of robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2013;111:1068–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Authors have nothing to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Rd, MOB L002H, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA

    Avinash Chenam M.D.

  2. Department of Urology, Beaumont Health System, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, 3535 W. 13 Mile Road, Suite 438, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA

    S. Mohammad A. Jafri M.D

Authors
  1. Avinash Chenam M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Mohammad A. Jafri M.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Mohammad A. Jafri M.D .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Keith A. Delman

  2. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Viraj A. Master

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chenam, A., Jafri, S.M.A. (2018). Complications of Inguinal Lymphadenectomy. In: Delman, K., Master, V. (eds) Malignancies of the Groin. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60858-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60858-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60857-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60858-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation