Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

Jeffrey K. Mullins, M. Eric Hyndman, Lynda Z. Mettee, Christian Pavlovich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has prognostic and possible therapeutic benefits. We assessed whether an extraperitoneal minimally invasive RP (MiRP) allows for standard-template PLND comparable to transperitoneal MiRP+PLND. Patients and Methods: A retrospective clinicopathologic study of 914 consecutive patients who underwent MiRP (laparoscopic or Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic) with bilateral PLND by one surgeon (CPP) from 2001 to 2010 was performed. Low-risk patients generally received a limited dissection (external iliac nodes) when PLND was performed. Those with intermediate- and high-risk disease generally received a standard PLND (external iliac and obturator nodes). Patients were stratified into groups based on operative approach (extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal) for most analyses. Results: Overall, 192 patients had transperitoneal MiRP+PLND, and 377 had extraperitoneal MiRP+PLND. The extraperitoneal group had higher body mass index (P=0.03), a higher percentage of low-risk (P=0.003), and a lower percentage of intermediate-risk disease (P=0.006). Lymph node yield (LNY) was higher with extraperitoneal PLND overall (6.5 vs 5.3, P=0.003). When stratified by risk category, LNY was greater in the extraperitoneal group for patients with low-risk disease only (6.6 vs 4.9, P=0.008). There was no difference in nodal yield in intermediate/high-risk patients receiving standard PLND by either the transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach (6.0 vs 5.5, P=0.36 and 8.0 vs 5.8, P=0.14, respectively). Lymph node involvement was rare overall. Estimated blood loss and complication rates were comparable between operative approaches. Conclusion: The extraperitoneal MiRP approach does not compromise the oncologic efficacy or safety of routine PLND.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1883-1887
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume25
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2011

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Lymph Node Excision
Lymph Nodes
Dissection
Body Mass Index
Retrospective Studies
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. / Mullins, Jeffrey K.; Hyndman, M. Eric; Mettee, Lynda Z.; Pavlovich, Christian.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 12, 01.12.2011, p. 1883-1887.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9f942d20d13e4c8f97c1dd64b8e9e171,
title = "Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has prognostic and possible therapeutic benefits. We assessed whether an extraperitoneal minimally invasive RP (MiRP) allows for standard-template PLND comparable to transperitoneal MiRP+PLND. Patients and Methods: A retrospective clinicopathologic study of 914 consecutive patients who underwent MiRP (laparoscopic or Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic) with bilateral PLND by one surgeon (CPP) from 2001 to 2010 was performed. Low-risk patients generally received a limited dissection (external iliac nodes) when PLND was performed. Those with intermediate- and high-risk disease generally received a standard PLND (external iliac and obturator nodes). Patients were stratified into groups based on operative approach (extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal) for most analyses. Results: Overall, 192 patients had transperitoneal MiRP+PLND, and 377 had extraperitoneal MiRP+PLND. The extraperitoneal group had higher body mass index (P=0.03), a higher percentage of low-risk (P=0.003), and a lower percentage of intermediate-risk disease (P=0.006). Lymph node yield (LNY) was higher with extraperitoneal PLND overall (6.5 vs 5.3, P=0.003). When stratified by risk category, LNY was greater in the extraperitoneal group for patients with low-risk disease only (6.6 vs 4.9, P=0.008). There was no difference in nodal yield in intermediate/high-risk patients receiving standard PLND by either the transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach (6.0 vs 5.5, P=0.36 and 8.0 vs 5.8, P=0.14, respectively). Lymph node involvement was rare overall. Estimated blood loss and complication rates were comparable between operative approaches. Conclusion: The extraperitoneal MiRP approach does not compromise the oncologic efficacy or safety of routine PLND.",
author = "Mullins, {Jeffrey K.} and Hyndman, {M. Eric} and Mettee, {Lynda Z.} and Christian Pavlovich",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2011.0209",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1883--1887",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

AU - Mullins, Jeffrey K.

AU - Hyndman, M. Eric

AU - Mettee, Lynda Z.

AU - Pavlovich, Christian

PY - 2011/12/1

Y1 - 2011/12/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has prognostic and possible therapeutic benefits. We assessed whether an extraperitoneal minimally invasive RP (MiRP) allows for standard-template PLND comparable to transperitoneal MiRP+PLND. Patients and Methods: A retrospective clinicopathologic study of 914 consecutive patients who underwent MiRP (laparoscopic or Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic) with bilateral PLND by one surgeon (CPP) from 2001 to 2010 was performed. Low-risk patients generally received a limited dissection (external iliac nodes) when PLND was performed. Those with intermediate- and high-risk disease generally received a standard PLND (external iliac and obturator nodes). Patients were stratified into groups based on operative approach (extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal) for most analyses. Results: Overall, 192 patients had transperitoneal MiRP+PLND, and 377 had extraperitoneal MiRP+PLND. The extraperitoneal group had higher body mass index (P=0.03), a higher percentage of low-risk (P=0.003), and a lower percentage of intermediate-risk disease (P=0.006). Lymph node yield (LNY) was higher with extraperitoneal PLND overall (6.5 vs 5.3, P=0.003). When stratified by risk category, LNY was greater in the extraperitoneal group for patients with low-risk disease only (6.6 vs 4.9, P=0.008). There was no difference in nodal yield in intermediate/high-risk patients receiving standard PLND by either the transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach (6.0 vs 5.5, P=0.36 and 8.0 vs 5.8, P=0.14, respectively). Lymph node involvement was rare overall. Estimated blood loss and complication rates were comparable between operative approaches. Conclusion: The extraperitoneal MiRP approach does not compromise the oncologic efficacy or safety of routine PLND.

AB - Background and Purpose: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has prognostic and possible therapeutic benefits. We assessed whether an extraperitoneal minimally invasive RP (MiRP) allows for standard-template PLND comparable to transperitoneal MiRP+PLND. Patients and Methods: A retrospective clinicopathologic study of 914 consecutive patients who underwent MiRP (laparoscopic or Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic) with bilateral PLND by one surgeon (CPP) from 2001 to 2010 was performed. Low-risk patients generally received a limited dissection (external iliac nodes) when PLND was performed. Those with intermediate- and high-risk disease generally received a standard PLND (external iliac and obturator nodes). Patients were stratified into groups based on operative approach (extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal) for most analyses. Results: Overall, 192 patients had transperitoneal MiRP+PLND, and 377 had extraperitoneal MiRP+PLND. The extraperitoneal group had higher body mass index (P=0.03), a higher percentage of low-risk (P=0.003), and a lower percentage of intermediate-risk disease (P=0.006). Lymph node yield (LNY) was higher with extraperitoneal PLND overall (6.5 vs 5.3, P=0.003). When stratified by risk category, LNY was greater in the extraperitoneal group for patients with low-risk disease only (6.6 vs 4.9, P=0.008). There was no difference in nodal yield in intermediate/high-risk patients receiving standard PLND by either the transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach (6.0 vs 5.5, P=0.36 and 8.0 vs 5.8, P=0.14, respectively). Lymph node involvement was rare overall. Estimated blood loss and complication rates were comparable between operative approaches. Conclusion: The extraperitoneal MiRP approach does not compromise the oncologic efficacy or safety of routine PLND.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82455212417&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82455212417&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2011.0209

DO - 10.1089/end.2011.0209

M3 - Article

C2 - 21749195

AN - SCOPUS:82455212417

VL - 25

SP - 1883

EP - 1887

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 12

ER -