From: Comparison of antegrade robotic assisted VS laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer
Ā | RAIL | LIL | P |
---|---|---|---|
Operative time /limb (min) | 97 (89ā108) | 95 (90ā115) | 0.204 |
Operative time /limb (min) (console time) | 83 (78ā93) | ā<ā0.001 | |
Estimated blood loss (ml) | 10 (6ā20) | 35 (25ā50) | ā<ā0.001 |
Saphenous vein sparing, no. (%) | 20 (100) | 23 (100) | Ā |
Bilateral dissection, no. (%) | 20 (100) | 23 (100) | Ā |
Lymph node yield, median (IQR) | 19 (16ā25) | 18 (12ā21) | 0.307 |
Pathological positive nodes, median (IQR) | 3 (1ā5) | 3 (1ā6) | 0.543 |
pN stage pN0/pN1/pN2/pN3 | 15/0/4/1 | 16/1/5/1 | 1.000 |
Length of hospital stay, median (IQR) | 3(2ā4) | 5 (4ā7) | 0.081 |
Duration of drainage, median (IQR) | 15 (11ā18) | 15 (10ā21) | 0.522 |
Complications | 0.447 | ||
Seroma, no. (%) | 4(20) | 2 (9) | Ā |
Lymphedema, no. (%) | 2 (10) | 3 (13) | Ā |
Deep venous thrombosis, no. (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | Ā |
Cellulitis, no. (%) | 0 (0) | 2 (9) | Ā |
Clavien classification, no. (%) | Ā | Ā | 0.762 |
I, n (%) | 4(25) | 5 (22) | Ā |
II, n (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | Ā |
IIIa, n (%) | 1 (5) | 2 (9) | 0.635 |
Follow up | 0.401 | ||
Duration of Follow up, mo, median (IQR) | 14 (4ā16) | 16 (14ā18) | 0.078 |
No recurrence | 18 | 19 | Ā |
Recurrence | 2 | 2 | Ā |
Loss to follow-up | 0 | 2 | Ā |