Background Minimally invasive modifications of inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL), including laparoscopic IL (LIL) and robotic-assisted IL (RAIL), have been utilized for penile cancer. Comparative study is necessary to guide the decision about which minimally invasive technique to select for IL. Therefore we compared RAIL with LIL performed via an antegrade approach in terms of perioperative outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent RAIL (n = 20) or LIL (n = 23) for penile cancer from 2016 to 2020. The key surgical procedures and techniques are described. Complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification, and operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and disease recurrence during follow-up were assessed. Categorical variables were compared using chi-squared whereas continuous variables were compared by t-tests. Results The operative time for RAIL was significantly shorter than that of LIL (median 83 vs 95 min). Significantly less blood loss was reported with RAIL than with LIL (median 10 vs 35 ml). Lymph node yield, pathological positive nodes, the hospital stay, postoperative drain duration, postoperative complications and recurrence were similar for RAIL and LIL. Conclusions For patients with penile cancer, perioperative outcomes of RAIL and LIL were similar, but there was less blood loss, a shorter operative time for robotic cases.

Background Minimally invasive modifications of inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL), including laparoscopic IL (LIL) and robotic-assisted IL (RAIL), have been utilized for penile cancer. Comparative study is necessary to guide the decision about which minimally invasive technique to select for IL. Therefore we compared RAIL with LIL performed via an antegrade approach in terms of perioperative outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent RAIL (n = 20) or LIL (n = 23) for penile cancer from 2016 to 2020. The key surgical procedures and techniques are described. Complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification, and operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and disease recurrence during follow-up were assessed. Categorical variables were compared using chi-squared whereas continuous variables were compared by t-tests. Results The operative time for RAIL was significantly shorter than that of LIL (median 83 vs 95 min). Significantly less blood loss was reported with RAIL than with LIL (median 10 vs 35 ml). Lymph node yield, pathological positive nodes, the hospital stay, postoperative drain duration, postoperative complications and recurrence were similar for RAIL and LIL. Conclusions For patients with penile cancer, perioperative outcomes of RAIL and LIL were similar, but there was less blood loss, a shorter operative time for robotic cases.

No abstract