title: Robotic-Assisted Transperitoneal Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Metastatic Melanoma: Early Outcomes Compared with Open Pelvic Lymphadenectomy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In the absence of iliac or obturator nodal involvement, the role of pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) for melanoma is controversial, but for select patients, long-term survival can be achieved with the combination of superficial inguinal (inguinofemoral) and PLND. Open PLND (oPLND) is often limited in visual exposure and can be associated with considerable postoperative pain. Robotic PLND (rPLND) is a minimally invasive technique that provides excellent visualization of the iliac and obturator nodes. Outcomes comparing the open and robotic techniques have not been reported previously for patients with melanoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  We reviewed our experience with rPLND for melanoma and compared clinical and pathologic results with oPLND. We evaluated operative times, nodal yield, and short-term oncologic outcomes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirteen rPLND (2013 to 2015) (15 attempted, 87% success rate) and 25 oPLND (2010 to 2015) consecutive cases were completed. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was combined with an open inguinofemoral dissection in 8 of 13 (62%) robotic and 17 of 25 (68%) open cases. Median length of stay was shorter in the rPLND group, with 1.0 vs 3.5 days for pelvic-only cases (p < 0.001) and 2.5 vs 4.0 days (p < 0.001) for combined ilioinguinal cases. Median operative time (227 vs 230 minutes; p = 0.96) and nodal yield (11 vs 10 nodes; p = 0.53) were not different between rPLND and oPLND.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Robotic PLND offers a safe, effective, minimally invasive approach to resect the pelvic lymph nodes in patients with melanoma, with no significant difference in nodal yield or operative times, but a shorter length of stay compared with oPLND.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Lesly A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Dossett
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Nicholas B
authors.initials: NB
authors.lastname: Castner
authors.affiliation: Department of Genito-Urinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Julio M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Pow-Sang
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Andrea M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Abbott
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Vernon K
authors.initials: VK
authors.lastname: Sondak
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Amod A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Sarnaik
authors.affiliation: Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. Electronic address: jonathan.zager@moffitt.org.
authors.forename: Jonathan S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Zager
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D007902:Length of Stay; D008197:Lymph Node Excision; D008297:Male; D008545:Melanoma / Q000556:secondary* / Q000601:surgery*; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D010388:Pelvis; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D065287:Robotic Surgical Procedures; D012878:Skin Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome