Comparing the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and open inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in penile cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic reviews and cumulative meta-analyses of primary results of interest according to PRISMA criteria, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. The system searched five databases, including Zhiwang, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The search period ranged was from database creation until September 2023. The statistical analysis software used Stata16. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies, including 898 patients. Compared to O-ILND, MIS is superior in length of stay (WMD = -2.96, 95%CI [-4.38, -1.54], P < 0.05), drainage time (WMD = -3.24, 95%CI [-4.70, -1.78], P < 0.05) and estimated blood loss (WMD = -35.70, 95%CI [-46.27, -25.14], P < 0.05), while operation time, recurrence rate and 5-year overall survival rate are the same. The number of lymph nodes dissection between the two groups are not statistically significant. Subgroup analyses found that there are more lymph nodes dissection in robotic-assisted inguinal lymph nodes dissection (WMD = 0.50, 95%CI [0.20, 0.80], P < 0.05). The overall complication rate of MIS was lower (OR = 0.26, 95%CI [0.09, 0.70], P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive inguinal lymph nodes dissection appears to be a better option for penile cancer cases. But more large samples and multicenter studies are needed to further confirm.