ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review.
Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suprapubic antegrade endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation for penile cancer: a stepwise technique (with video).World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Author reply Re: Kandasamy SG, Chandran KR, Pooleri GK. Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review. Indian J Urol. 2022;38:15-21.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic-assisted VEIL (R-VEIL). In this review, we aim to describe the techniques, case selection, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes of VEIL and R-VEIL and to compare it with open ILND.
methodsDatabases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the articles for VEIL and R-VEIL. Using PRISMA guidelines, literature search yielded 3783 articles, of which 32 full-text articles relevant to the topic were selected and reviewed, after consensus from authors.
resultsAfter the first description of VEIL, various modifications in port placements and approaches were described. Several studies have shown, VEIL and R VEIL are safe and feasible in both node-negative and node-positive Ca penis patients. Compared to open ILND, VEIL had fewer wound infections and skin necrosis, minimal blood loss, shorter mean hospital stays, and reduced duration of drain kept. There is no difference in mean lymph node yield and recurrence rates between open ILND, VEIL, R-VEIL.
conclusionVEIL and R-VEIL are safe and have comparable oncological outcomes with open ILND.
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.