ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018
Robotic inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma: a novel approach to a complicated problem.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of the Literature on Videoscopic and Robotic Inguinal-Iliac-Obturator Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology Image Analysis: Current Developments and Future Trends.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Combined robotic inguinal and iliac-obturator lymphadenectomy for stage III skin cancers: Surgical technique and preliminary results.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- Risk factors for lower extremity lymphedema after inguinal lymphadenectomy in melanoma patients: A retrospective cohort study.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Robotic inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma: a novel approach to a complicated problem.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndications for superficial inguinal lymph node (ILN) dissection in melanoma include fine needle aspiration or clinically positive ILN and sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Open inguinal lymphadenectomy may be complicated by poor wound healing, deep vein thrombosis, and lymphedema. Technical considerations and case series of a novel surgical approach, robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy, are presented.
methodsThis is a case series of four robotic ILN dissections for melanoma at a tertiary care facility. Each patient had previously diagnosed melanoma by lymph node biopsy. Physician and patient jointly decided on robotic procedure after disclosure of this novel approach. Demographic, complication, pathological outcome, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and length of stay (LOS) data were collected.
resultsNo cases were aborted due to technical difficulty. The median patient age was 44.5 years (range 22-53 years) and median BMI was 27.5 (range 20.4-40.2). Operative time range was 120-231 min and EBL from 0 to 100 mL. Median nodal count was 5.5 (range 1-14 nodes). Patient LOS ranged from 0 (discharged from post anesthesia care unit) to 96 h. There was one complication of port site cellulitis, one seroma formation, and no instances of lymphedema. To date, there have been no deaths or melanoma recurrences in this population.
conclusionRecent data suggest a minimum node count of six to seven for inguinal dissection. Of our four dissections, two were above this threshold and there were minimal postoperative complications. Given our limited sample size, future focus should be on increasing the data on this approach to optimize surgical outcomes and oncologic results.
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.