Abstract
Introduction: Symptomatic lymphoceles (SLs) represent the most common complication after radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). To date, preoperative risk factors are missing. Methods: Clinical and pathological data of 592 patients who underwent RP and PLND were evaluated. Included parameters were age, BMI, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA ratio, PSA density, number of resected and/or positive lymph nodes, previous abdominal surgery/pelvic radiotherapy, anticoagulation, and surgical approach. Results: Fifty-nine patients (10%) developed an SL, of which 57 underwent open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and 2 underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Multivariate logistic regression revealed the following parameters as statistically significant risk factors: PSA (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% CI [1.25; 5.04], p = 0.04), number of resected lymph nodes (OR = 1.47; 95% CI [1.10; 1.97], p < 0.01), previous abdominal surgery (OR = 2.58; 95% CI [1.38; 4.91], p < 0.01), and surgical approach (OR = 0.08; 95% CI [0.01; 0.27], p < 0.01). Previous oral anticoagulation showed almost statistically significant results (OR = 2.39 [0.92; 5.51], p = 0.05). Conclusion: The risk for SL might be predictable considering preoperative risk factors such as PSA, previous abdominal surgery and anticoagulation. To avoid SL, RARP should be the procedure of choice. If RRP is considered, patients at risk for SL may benefit from peritoneal fenestration during RP.
References
1.
Briganti
A
, Chun
FK
, Salonia
A
, Suardi
N
, Gallina
A
, Da Pozzo
LF
, Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer
. Eur Urol
. 2006
;50
(5
):1006
. .2.
Augustin
H
, Hammerer
P
, Graefen
M
, Palisaar
J
, Noldus
J
, Fernandez
S
, Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002
. Eur Urol
. 2003
;43
(2
):113
.3.
Musch
M
, Klevecka
V
, Roggenbuck
U
, Kroepfl
D
. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006
. J Urol
. 2008
;179
(3
):923
. .4.
Heidenreich
A
, Varga
Z
, Von Knobloch
R
. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis
. J Urol
. 2002
;167
(4
):1681
.5.
Pepper
RJ
, Pati
J
, Kaisary
AV
. The incidence and treatment of lymphoceles after radical retropubic prostatectomy
. BJU Int
. 2005
;95
(6
):772
. .6.
Heers
H
, Laumeier
T
, Olbert
PJ
, Hofmann
R
, Hegele
A
. Lymphoceles post-radical retropubic prostatectomy: a retrospective evaluation of epidemiology, risk factors and outcome
. Urol Int
. 2015
;95
(4
):400
. .7.
Heidenreich
A
, Ohlmann
CH
, Polyakov
S
. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy
. Eur Urol
. 2007
;52
(1
):29
. .8.
Horovitz
D
, Lu
X
, Feng
C
, Messing
EM
, Joseph
JV
. Rate of symptomatic lymphocele formation after extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy
. J Endourol
. 2017
;31
(10
):1037
. .9.
Mundhenk
J
, Hennenlotter
J
, Alloussi
S
, Selbherr
D
, Martzog
JC
, Todenhöfer
T
, Influence of body mass index, surgical approach and lymphadenectomy on the development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy
. Urol Int
. 2013
;90
(3
):270
. .10.
Tsaur
I
, Thomas
C
. Risk factors, complications and management of lymphocele formation after radical prostatectomy: a mini-review
. Int J Urol
. 2019
;26
:711
–6
.11.
Thomas
C
, Ziewers
S
, Thomas
A
, Dotzauer
R
, Bartsch
G
, Haferkamp
A
, Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: a single-center analysis
. Int Urol Nephrol
. 2019
;51
:633
–40
.12.
Brembilla
G
, Dell’Oglio
P
, Stabile
A
, Ambrosi
A
, Cristel
G
, Brunetti
L
, Preoperative multiparametric MRI of the prostate for the prediction of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection
. Eur Radiol
. 2018
;28
:1969
–76
.13.
Maurer
T
, Eiber
M
, Schwaiger
M
, Gschwend
JE
. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management
. Nat Rev Urol
. 2016
;13
(4
):226
. .14.
Grubmuller
B
, Baltzer
P
, Hartenbach
S
, D’Andrea
D
, Helbich
TH
, Haug
AR
, PSMA ligand PET/MRI for primary prostate cancer: staging performance and clinical impact
. Clin Cancer Res
. 2018
;24
:6300
–7
.15.
Corfield
J
, Perera
M
, Bolton
D
, Lawrentschuk
N
. 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
. World J Urol
. 2018
;36
:519
–27
.16.
Capitanio
U
, Pellucchi
F
, Gallina
A
, Briganti
A
, Suardi
N
, Salonia
A
, How can we predict lymphorrhoea and clinically significant lymphocoeles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy? Clinical implications
. BJU Int
. 2011
;107
(7
):1095
. .17.
Naselli
A
, Andreatta
R
, Introini
C
, Fontana
V
, Puppo
P
. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy
. Urology
. 2010
;75
(3
):630
. .18.
Lee
JY
, Diaz
RR
, Cho
KS
, Yu
HS
, Chung
JS
, Ham
WS
, Lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matching study
. Int J Urol
. 2013
;20
(12
):1169
. .19.
Beyer
J
, Wessela
S
, Hakenberg
OW
, Kuhlisch
E
, Halbritter
K
, Froehner
M
, Incidence, risk profile and morphological pattern of venous thromboembolism after prostate cancer surgery
. J Thromb Haemost
. 2009
;7
(4
):597
. .20.
D’Amico
AV
, Whittington
R
, Bruce Malkowicz
S
, Schultz
D
, Blank
K
, Broderick
GA
, Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer
. J Am Med Assoc
. 1998
;280
:969
–74
.21.
Heidenreich
A
, Aus
G
, Bolla
M
, Joniau
S
, Matveev
VB
, Schmid
HP
, EAU guidelines on prostate cancer
. Eur Urol
. 2008
;53
(1
):68
. .22.
Thompson
I
, Thrasher
JB
, Aus
G
, Burnett
AL
, Canby-Hagino
ED
, Cookson
MS
, Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update
. J Urol
. 2007
;177
:2106
–31
.23.
Gotto
GT
, Yunis
LH
, Guillonneau
B
, Touijer
K
, Eastham
JA
, Scardino
PT
, Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection
. Int J Urol
. 2011
;18
(4
):291
. .24.
Stolzenburg
JU
, Arthanareeswaran
VKA
, Dietel
A
, Franz
T
, Liatsikos
E
, Kyriazis
I
, Four-point peritoneal flap fixation in preventing lymphocele formation following radical prostatectomy
. Eur Urol Oncol
. 2018
;1
:443
–8
.25.
Stolzenburg
JU
, Wasserscheid
J
, Rabenalt
R
, Do
M
, Schwalenberg
T
, McNeill
A
, Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration
. World J Urol
. 2008
;26
(6
):581
. .26.
Bigg
SW
, Catalona
WJ
. Prophylactic mini-dose heparin in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. A prospective trial
. Urology
. 1992
;39
(4
):309
.27.
Sieber
PR
, Rommel
FM
, Agusta
VE
, Breslin
JA
, Harpster
LE
, Huffnagle
HW
, Is heparin contraindicated in pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical prostatectomy?
J Urol
. 1997
;158
(3 Pt 1
):869
.28.
Jessie
BC
, Marshall
FF
. Pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy: does concomitant pelvic lymphadenectomy matter?
Int J Urol
. 2008
;15
(11
):951
. .29.
Von Below
C
, Daouacher
G
, Wassberg
C
, Grzegorek
R
, Gestblom
C
, Sörensen
J
, Validation of 3 T MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging for nodal staging of newly diagnosed intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer
. Clin Radiol
. 2016
;71
(4
):328
. .30.
Thoeny
HC
, Froehlich
JM
, Triantafyllou
M
, Huesler
J
, Bains
LJ
, Vermathen
P
, Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging
. Radiology
. 2014
;273
(1
):125
. .© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
2021
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
