Purpose: Identification of factors influencing lymphocele formation requiring intervention after radical prostatectomy. Methods: 302 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP, n = 174) or transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP, n = 128) by the same surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles (SLC) was compared with clinical and pathological data (contingency analyses, Wilcoxon-Kruskal-Wallis test). Results: Sixteen patients (5.3%) developed SLC. SLC occurred significantly more frequently after RRP compared to RALP (8.0 vs. 0.8%, p = 0.0008). Patients with SLC had more lymph nodes (LN) removed median (17 vs. 13, p = 0.009) and a significantly lower BMI (median 24.4 vs. 26.4, p = 0.0008). Presence of LN metastases (n = 18 patients, 6.0%) showed no statistical impact on SLC. In a multivariate analysis surgical method, the number of resected LN and the BMI remained independent predictors of SLC formation. Conclusions: The lower incidence of SLC after RALP compared to RRP probably results from peritoneal drainage of lymphatic fluid. The correlation of removed LN and SLC might be explained by increased injury of lymphatic vessels during more extended LN dissection. Why patients with lower BMI are more prone to develop SLC still remains unclear. However, early postoperative mobilization in nonobese patients might be a contributing factor.

Keywords:
Prostatectomy, Lymphocele, Pelvic lymph node dissection , Body mass index
1.
Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R: Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002;167:1681-1686.
2.
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. 1. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59:61-71.
3.
Keegan KA, Cookson MS: Complications of pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2011;12:203-208.
4.
Lallas C, Pe M, Thumar A, Chandrasekar T, Lee L, McCue P, Gomella L, Trabulsi E: Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;107:1136-1140.
5.
Naselli A, Andreatta R, Introini C, Fontana V, Puppo P: Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010;75:630-635.
6.
Solberg A, Angelsen A, Bergan U, Haugen O, Viset T, Klepp O: Frequency of lymphoceles after open and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003;37:218-221.
7.
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;179:923-928; discussion 928-929.
8.
Briganti A, Chun FKH, Salonia A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Da Pozzo LF, Roscigno M, Zanni G, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz P: Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50:1006-1013.
9.
Capitanio U, Pellucchi F, Gallina A, Briganti A, Suardi N, Salonia A, Abdollah F, Di Trapani E, Jeldres C, Cestari A, Karakiewicz P, Montorsi F: How can we predict lymphorrhoea and clinically significant lymphocoeles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy? Clinical implications. BJU Int 2011;107:1095-1101.
10.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
11.
Harisinghani M, Barentsz J, Hahn P, Deserno W, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa CH, de la Rosette J, Weissleder R: Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491-2499.
12.
Schilling D, Boekeler U, Gakis G, Schwentner C, Corvin S, Sotlar K, Müller AC, Bares R, Stenzl A: Modified concept for radioisotope-guided sentinel lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. World J Urol 2010;28:715-720.
13.
Gotto G, Yunis LH, Guillonneau B, Touijer K, Eastham J, Scardino P, Rabbani F: Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Int J Urol 2011;18: 291-296.
14.
Beyer J, Wessela S, Hakenberg OW, Kuhlisch E, Halbritter K, Froehner M, Wirth MP, Schellong SM: Incidence, risk profile and morphological pattern of venous thromboembolism after prostate cancer surgery. J Thromb Haemost 2009;7:597-604.
15.
Bader P, Burkhard F, Markwalder R, Studer U: Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002;168:514-518; discussion 518.
16.
Bader P, Hubert R, Echtle D, Frohneberg D: Limited lymph node dissection in prostate cancer may miss lymph node metastases and determines outcome of apparently pN0 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004;16(suppl 3):abstract 55.
17.
Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, Palisaar J, Noldus J, Fernandez S, Huland H: 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;43:113-118.
18.
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Lee B, Truss M, McNeill A, Burchardt M, Jonas U, Liatsikos E: Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management. World J Urol 2006;24:668-675.
19.
Zorn K, Katz M, Bernstein A, Shikanov S, Brendler C, Zagaja G, Shalhav A: Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology 2009;74:296-302.
20.
Stolzenburg JU, Wasserscheid J, Rabenalt R, Do M, Schwalenberg T, McNeill A, Constantinides C, Kallidonis P, Ganzer R, Liatsikos E: Reduction in incidence of lymphocele following extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection by bilateral peritoneal fenestration. World J Urol 2008;26:581-586.
21.
Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Tarabuzzi R, Billia M, Grande S, Musso F, Burruni R, Renard J, Scarpa RM: Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single center. Urology 2006;68:376-380.
22.
Simonato A, Varca V, Esposito M, Venzano F, Carmignani G: The use of a surgical patch in the prevention of lymphoceles after extraperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: a randomized prospective pilot study. J Urol 2009;182:2285-2290.
23.
Waldert M, Remzi M, Klatte T, Klingler HC: FloSeal reduces the incidence of lymphoceles after lymphadenectomies in laparoscopic and robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011;25:969-973.
24.
Banerjee D, Williams EV, Ilott J, Monypenny IJ, Webster DJ: Obesity predisposes to increased drainage following axillary node clearance: a prospective audit. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001;83:268-271.
25.
Mohr Z, Hirche C, Gretschel S, Bembenek A: Risk factors for the development of lymphatic fistula after ilioinguinal lymph node dissection before isolated limb perfusion and its potential clinical relevance. Zentralbl Chir 2011;136:386-390.
26.
Gehlert S, Theis C, Weber S, Schiffer T, Hellmich M, Platen P, Bloch W: Exercise-induced decline in the density of LYVE-1-positive lymphatic vessels in human skeletal muscle. Lymphat Res Biol 2010;8:165-173.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.