Pelvic lymph node dissection is an important step during robotic radical prostatectomy. The collection of lymphatic fluid (lymphocele) is the most common complication with potentially severe impact; therefore, different strategies have been proposed to reduce its incidence.
Materials and Methods:
In this systematic review, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and NIH Registry of Clinical Trials were searched for articles including the following interventions: transperitoneal vs extraperitoneal approach, any reconfiguration of the peritoneum, the use of pelvic drains, and the use of different sealing techniques and sealing agents. The outcome evaluated was the incidence of symptomatic lymphocele. Randomized, nonrandomized, and/or retrospective studies were included.
Results:
Twelve studies were included (including one ongoing randomized clinical trial). Because of heterogeneity of included studies, no meta-analysis was performed. No significant impact was reported by different sealing techniques and agents or by surgical approach. Three retrospective, nonrandomized studies showed a potential benefit of peritoneal reconfiguration to maximize the peritoneal surface of reabsorption.
Conclusion:
Lymphocele formation is a multistep and multifactorial event; high-quality literature analyzing risk factors and preventive measures is rather scarce. Peritoneal reconfiguration could represent a reasonable option that deserves further evaluation; no other preventive measure is supported by current evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FossatiN, WillemsePM, Van den BroeckT, et al.The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol, 2017; 72:84–109.
2.
MottetN, BellmuntJ, BollaM, et al.EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol, 2017; 71:618–629.
3.
MetcalfKS, PeelKR. Lymphocele. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 1993; 75:387–392.
4.
LissMA, PalazziK, StroupSP, JabajiR, RaheemOA, KaneCJ. Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol, 2013; 31:481–488.
5.
PloussardG, BrigantiA, de la TailleA, et al.Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol, 2014; 65:7–16.
6.
Jereczek-FossaBA, ColangioneSP, FodorC, et al.Radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients with pelvic lymphocele after surgery: Clinical and dosimetric data of 30 patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer, 2015; 13:e223–e228.
7.
LeeHJ, KaneCJ. How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep, 2014; 15:445.
8.
CapitanioU, PellucchiF, GallinaA, et al.How can we predict lymphorrhoea and clinically significant lymphocoeles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy? Clinical implications. BJU Int, 2011; 107:1095–1101.
9.
KeskinMS, ArgunOB, ObekC, TufekI, TunaMB, MourmourisP, ErdoganS, KuralAR. The incidence and sequela of lymphocele formation after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int, 2016; 118:127–131.
10.
HuJC, GoldKF, PashosCL, MehtaSS, LitwinMS. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol, 2003; 21:401–405.
11.
OrvietoMA, CoelhoRF, ChauhanS, PalmerKJ, RoccoB, PatelVR. Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int, 2011; 108:1185–1190.
12.
DanuserH, Di PierroGB, StuckiP, MatteiA. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: Is pelvic drainage necessary?. BJU Int, 2013; 111:963–969.
13.
YuhBE, RuelNH, MejiaR, NovaraG, WilsonTG. Standardized comparison of robot-assisted limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2013; 112:81–88.
14.
TikkinenKAO, CartwrightR, GouldMK, NasproR, NovaraG, SandsetPM, ViolettePD, GuyattGH. EAU guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in urological surgery 2018. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2018 Edition, vol. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, 2018.
15.
KochMO, SmithJAJr. Low molecular weight heparin and radical prostatectomy: A prospective analysis of safety and side effects. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 1997; 1:101–104.
16.
NaselliA, AndreattaR, IntroiniC, FontanaV, PuppoP. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2010; 75:630–635.
17.
GottoGT, YunisLH, GuillonneauB, TouijerK, EasthamJA, ScardinoPT, RabbaniF. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Int J Urol, 2011; 18:291–296.
18.
KowalczykKJ, LevyJM, CaplanCF, LipsitzSR, YuHY, GuX, HuJC. Temporal national trends of minimally invasive and retropubic radical prostatectomy outcomes from 2003 to 2007: Results from the 100% Medicare sample. Eur Urol, 2012; 61:803–809.
19.
PorpigliaF, TerroneC, TarabuzziR, et al.Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Experience of a single center. Urology, 2006; 68:376–380.
20.
ChungJS, KimWT, HamWS, YuHS, ChaeY, ChungSH, ChoiYD. Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon's experience. J Endourol, 2011; 25:787–792.
21.
MihaljevicAL, HegerP, Abbasi DezfouliS, GolrizM, MehrabiA. Prophylaxis of lymphocele formation after kidney transplantation via peritoneal fenestration: A systematic review. Transplant Int, 2017; 30:543–555.
MusserJE, AsselM, GuglielmettiGB, PathakP, SilbersteinJL, SjobergDD, BernsteinM, LaudoneVP. Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2014; 28:1333–1337.
24.
SharmaS, KimHL, MohlerJL. Routine pelvic drainage not required after open or robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2007; 69:330–333.
25.
CharoenkwanK, KietpeerakoolC. Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 6:CD007387.
26.
ProdromidouA, IavazzoC, FotiouA, PsomiadouV, DrakouM, VorgiasG, KalinoglouN. The application of fibrin sealant for the prevention of lymphocele after lymphadenectomy in patients with gynecological malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Oncol, 2019; 153:201–208.
27.
GerkenALH, DobroschkeJ, ReissfelderC, et al.Tissue sealants for the prevention of lymphoceles after radical inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with melanoma: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 2019. J Surg Oncol, 2019; 113:728–736.
28.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009; 151:264–269, w264.
29.
HigginsJPT, AltmanDG, GøtzschePC, et al.The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011; 343:d5928.
30.
WellsGA, SheaB, O'ConnelD, PetersonJ, WelchV, LososM, TugwellP. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed September18, 2019).
31.
HorovitzD, LuX, FengC, MessingEM, JosephJV. Rate of symptomatic lymphocele formation after extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Endourol, 2017; 31:1037–1043.
32.
StolzenburgJU, WasserscheidJ, RabenaltR, et al.Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration. World J Urol, 2008; 26:581–586.
33.
Dal MoroF, ZattoniF. P.L.E.A.T.-Preventing lymphocele ensuring absorption transperitoneally: A robotic technique. Urology, 2017; 110:244–247.
34.
StolzenburgJ-U, ArthanareeswaranVKA, DietelA, et al.Four-point peritoneal flap fixation in preventing lymphocele formation following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol, 2018; 1:443–448.
35.
ChenamA, YuhB, ZhumkhawalaA, et al.Prospective randomised non-inferiority trial of pelvic drain placement vs no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2018; 121:357–364.
36.
YasumizuY, MiyajimaA, MaedaT, TakedaT, HasegawaM, KosakaT, KikuchiE, OyaM. How can lymphocele development be prevented after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?. J Endourol, 2013; 27:447–451.
37.
GrandeP, Di PierroGB, MordasiniL, FerrariM, WurnschimmelC, DanuserH, MatteiA. 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; 71:155–158.
38.
WaldertM, RemziM, KlatteT, KlinglerHC. FloSeal reduces the incidence of lymphoceles after lymphadenectomies in laparoscopic and robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2011; 25:969–973.
39.
GilbertDR, AngellJ, AbazaR. Evaluation of absorbable hemostatic powder for prevention of lymphoceles following robotic prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy. Urology, 2016; 98:75–80.
40.
BuelensS, Van PraetC, PoelaertF, Van HueleA, DecaesteckerK, LumenN. Prospective randomized controlled trial exploring the effect of TachoSil on lymphocele formation after extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Urology, 2018; 118:134–140.
