ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2017
Robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: the why, how, and what.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial experience and technical description of robot-assisted single-port laparoscopic bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer: a report of two cases.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- The role of robotic-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy in vulval cancer: feasibility, peri-operative outcomes and oncological safety.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Robotic abdominoperineal resection, bilateral robotic groin node dissection and simultaneous perineal gracilis flap reconstruction for locally advanced node-positive anal squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) oncological and surgical benefits compared to open inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND).Journal of men's health · 2024Article
- Long-term follow-up of comparative study of open and endoscopic lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Femoral artery blowout syndrome after inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.Asian journal of urology · 2023Article
- Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer patients: a comparison between open and video endoscopic approach in a multicenter setting.Journal of basic and clinical physiology and pharmacology · 2023Article
- Technical management of inguinal lymph-nodes in penile cancer: open versus minimal invasive.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes.Asian journal of urology · 2021Review
- Recent advances in the management of penile cancer.F1000Research · 2019Review
- Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
- Robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy: preliminary experience and perioperative outcomes from an Italian referral center.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCC-P) demonstrates a reliable pattern of spread to the lymph nodes of the groin. High grade and higher stage (pT1b or greater) SCC-P demonstrate a higher propensity for metastasis to the inguinal lymph nodes. Further, lymphadenopathy progresses in a predictable fashion, from superficial inguinal lymph nodes to deep inguinal lymph nodes to pelvic lymph nodes, with limited survival noted for those patients with progression to pelvic lymph nodes. Fortunately, inguinal lymphadenectomy can provide cure and improvement in RFS for SCC-P. Unfortunately open inguinal lymphadenectomy is associated with significant morbidity. Perhaps owing to this morbidity, inguinal lymphadenectomy is underperformed in the US. In other words, urologists only offer inguinal lymphadenectomy for high risk SCC-P in only a minority of cases and even when performed, lymph node yield is often unsatisfactory (less than 8 nodes per groin). Recently, a laparoendoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy has been developed as a new approach to offer potentially curative lymph node resection while minimizing morbidity. The robotic platform has since been adapted for this approach and several reports demonstrate significant improvements in morbidity while maintaining oncologic equivalency. This review highlights the rationale for inguinal lymphadenectomy, inguinal lymph node anatomy, and technical considerations and outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.