Comparison of clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes between video endoscopic and open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundTo compare the clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes of video endoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection (VE-ILND) and open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in the management of penile cancer.

methodsWe searched published articles in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases. Data were extracted by 2 independent authors, and meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager software version 5.3.

resultsTen studies were included. Compared with the O-ILND group, the VE-ILND group exhibited less intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 3.12; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [1.27, 4.98]; P = .001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = 1.77; 95% CIs [0.94, 2.60]; P < .001), shorter drainage time (SMD = 2.69; 95% CI [1.47, 3.91]; P < .001), reduced wound infection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 10.62; 95% CI [4.01, 28.10]; P < .001); reduced skin necrosis rate (OR = 7.48; 95% CI [2.79, 20.05]; P < .001), lower lymphedema rate (OR = 3.23; 95% CI [1.51, 6.88]; P = .002), equivalent lymphocele rate (OR = 0.83; 95% CI [0.31, 2.23]; P = .720), and parallel recurrence rate (OR = 1.54; 95% CI [0.41, 5.84]; P = 0.530). However, the number of dissected lymph nodes (OR = 0.25; 95% CI [0.03, 0.47]; P = .030) was slightly increased in the O-ILND group. GRADE recommendations of primary outcomes were shown in a summary of findings table.

conclusionsFor perioperative outcomes, VE-ILND is superior to O-ILND. For short-term oncological outcomes, VE-ILND is comparable to O-ILND. However, long-term oncological control still requires further verification.