Robot-Assisted Pelvic Dissection for Enlarged Lymph Nodes in Melanoma Improves Recovery with Equivalent Oncological Outcomes to Open Pelvic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection (rPLND) has been reported in heterogenous groups of patients with melanoma, including macroscopic or at-high-risk-for microscopic metastasis. With changing indications for surgery in melanoma, and availability of effective systemic therapies, pelvic dissection is now performed for clinically detected bulky lymph node metastasis followed by adjuvant drug therapy. rPLND has not been compared with open pelvic lymph node dissection (oPLND) for modern practice. METHODS: All patients undergoing pelvic node dissection for macroscopic melanoma at a single institution were reviewed as a cohort, observational study. RESULTS: Twenty-two pelvic lymph node dissections were identified (8 oPLND; 14 rPLND). The number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was similar (median oPLND 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-12.5] versus rPLND 6.0 [3.75-9.0]), with frequent matted nodes (11/22, 50.0%). Operative time (median oPLND 130 min [IQR 95.5-182] versus rPLND 126 min [IQR 97.8-160]) and complications (Clavien-Dindo scale) were similar. Length of hospital stay (median 5.34 days (IQR 3.77-6.94) versus 1.98 days (IQR 1.39-3.50) and time to postoperative adjuvant therapy (median 11.6 weeks [IQR 10.6-18.5] versus 7.71 weeks [IQR 6.29-10.4]) were shorter in the rPLND group. No differences in pelvic lymph node recurrence (p = 0.984), distant metastatic recurrence (p = 0.678), or melanoma-specific survival (p = 0.655) were seen (median follow-up 21.1 months [rPLND] and 25.7 months [oPLND]). CONCLUSIONS: rPLND is an effective way to remove bulky pelvic lymph nodes in melanoma, with a shorter recovery and reduced interval to initiating adjuvant therapy compared with oPLND. This group of patients may especially benefit from neoadjuvant systemic approaches to management.

The impact of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal urinary diversion (RARC-ICUD).

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether pre-operative comorbidity status measured by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) or cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is associated with postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal urinary diversion (RARC-ICUD). Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database of 428 consecutive patients who underwent RARC-ICUD at a tertiary referral centre between 2011 and 2019. CCI was correlated with peri-operative outcomes including postoperative LOS, Clavien-Dindo (CD) complications and survival. A planned subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between pre-operative CPET, and the same outcomes utilising the threshold of anaerobic threshold (AT) ≥ 11/ <11 ml/kg/min were analysed. Results: Of the total cohort, 350 patients undergoing RARC-ICUD with complete data were included in the final analysis. A CCI score ≥5 was associated with a higher rate of CD III-V complications at 30-day incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3.033, (p = 0.02) and at 90-day IRR 2.495, (p = 0.04) postsurgery. LOS was not associated with CCI; the strongest association with LOS was a CD complication of any grading. CCI did not predict readmission or mortality rates after surgery. Subanalyses of patients who underwent pre-operative CPET found that CPET <11 ml/kg/min did not predict for LOS, CD complications or death within 1 year of surgery. Conclusions: CCI score is a simple, reliable and cost-effective way of identifying patients at increased risk of complication after RARC-ICUD. Surgeons performing radical cystectomy should consider utilising CCI to augment pre-operative patient counselling prior to RARC-ICUD.

Isolated nerve palsy following insertion of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis.

Case report of a 57-year-old male who underwent insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis due to erectile dysfunction, secondary to poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes and Peyronie's disease. The surgical procedure was uneventful and there were no immediate post-operative complications. During a routine follow-up, the patient described problems with the deflation of the implant and severe lower back and leg pain. Diagnostic MRI scans revealed reservoir migration, impingement of the obturator nerve and oedema in the adductor muscle group. The reservoir was initially repositioned, and later on removed due to ongoing symptoms.

Is it safe to divide and ligate the left innominate vein in complex cardiothoracic surgeries?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether it is safe to divide the left innominate vein (LIV) in aortic arch surgery to improve access. Altogether, 228 relevant papers were found using the reported search, of which nine represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Following LIV division, the venous drainage takes place via multiple collateral systems such as the azygous/hemiazygous, the internal mammary veins, the lateral thoracic and superficial thoracoabdominal veins, vertebral venous plexus as well as the transverse sinus. The possible complications are mainly left upper limb swelling and neurological symptoms. In one case series of 14 patients, the LIV was divided and ligated to facilitate the exposure for aortic arch surgery. More than 2-year follow-up did not reveal upper limb oedema or neurological symptoms. In two cohorts of 52 patients, the LIV was ligated prior to the superior vena cava (SVC) resection for malignancy. During the mid-term follow-up, no neurological or upper limb symptoms were reported. Although in two studies with 72 and 70 patients undergoing SVC resection it was not specified how many of them had LIV ligation, no relevant complications were reported. In a report, LIV occlusion was observed in 4 patients undergoing left internal jagular vein catheterization for haemodialysis. The reported symptom was left arm swelling with no neurological problems. In a cohort of 18 patients undergoing SVC resection for malignancy and major vein reconstruction, 7 patients underwent ligation of the LIV with no neurological symptoms. It was also concluded that reconstruction of the LIV is not consistent with favourable patency. In a case series of 10 patients with central venous obstruction, collateral pathways to conduct efficient venous drainage were mapped. We conclude that division of the LIV is safe in selected patients and operations. Patients will initially have symptoms of central vein obstruction, but these will decrease with conservative management as collaterals form.