title: Early experience of robotic-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy: review of surgical outcomes relative to alternative approaches.
abstract: Inguinal lymph node dissection is a diagnostic and potentially curative treatment for penile carcinoma, which has historically been associated with high morbidity rates. This review summarizes the initial outcomes of robotic-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) compared with the outcomes of the standard open and endoscopic approaches. The early experience suggests that RAIL may yield comparable oncologic outcomes, although future prospective studies of RAIL with greater numbers of participants and long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the incidence and severity of perioperative and postoperative complications.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
authors.forename: Talar B
authors.initials: TB
authors.lastname: Kharadjian
authors.forename: Surena F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Matin
authors.forename: Curtis A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Pettaway
mesh_terms: D002294:Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007264:Inguinal Canal; D008197:Lymph Node Excision / Q000379:methods*; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D008297:Male; D010412:Penile Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D012371:Robotics / Q000379:methods*; D021701:Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: J Endourol. 2013 Apr;27(4):497-503
references.pmid: 23067251
references.citation: BJU Int. 2013 Jun;111(7):1068-74
references.pmid: 23551693
references.citation: Int J Med Robot. 2013 Dec;9(4):423-7
references.pmid: 23733632
references.citation: Urology. 2009 Jan;73(1):167-70; discussion 170-1
references.pmid: 18829076
references.citation: World J Surg Oncol. 2013 Feb 22;11:42
references.pmid: 23432959
references.citation: Indian J Urol. 2011 Jul;27(3):424-7
references.pmid: 22022077
references.citation: J Endourol. 2013 May;27(5):657-61
references.pmid: 23268699
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Aug;22(8):1687-91
references.pmid: 18657031
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2013 Sep;64(3):486-92
references.pmid: 23490726
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63(4):657-63
references.pmid: 23153743
references.citation: Indian J Cancer. 2009 Jul-Sep;46(3):214-8
references.pmid: 19574673
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Jun;57(6):1002-12
references.pmid: 20163910
references.citation: J Urol. 2010 Aug;184(2):546-52
references.pmid: 20620415
references.citation: Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5):1110
references.pmid: 16286145
references.citation: J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2086-92
references.pmid: 23770135
references.citation: Can J Urol. 2012 Aug;19(4):6395-400
references.pmid: 22892266
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 10;27(20):3325-9
references.pmid: 19414668
references.citation: World J Urol. 2009 Apr;27(2):205-12
references.pmid: 18762945
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Apr;21(4):364-7; discussion 367
references.pmid: 17451323
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Aug;172(2):498-501; discussion 501
references.pmid: 15247713