ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Long-term follow-up of comparative study of open and endoscopic lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The incidence and classification of intraoperative adverse events in urological surgery: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Suprapubic antegrade endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation for penile cancer: a stepwise technique (with video).World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPenile carcinoma is an uncommon cancer that develops in the penis tissue. The standard surgical method to manage regional lymph nodes after local excision is radical inguinal lymphadenectomy, but it has a high rate of complications. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy and open inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma.
methodsThe study included patients diagnosed with penile carcinoma who underwent open inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 23) or endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 27) at a single hospital between January 2013 and January 2021. Operation time, blood loss, drainage, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and survival rates were assessed and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe two groups were comparable in terms of age, tumor size and stage, inguinal lymph nodes, and follow-up. The endoscopic group had significantly lower blood loss (27.1 ± 1.5 ml vs 55.0 ± 2.7 ml, P < 0.05), shorter drainage time and hospital stay (4.7 ± 1.1 days vs 8.1 ± 2.2 days, and 13.4 ± 1.0 days vs 19 ± 2.0 days, respectively, P < 0.05), and longer operation time compared to the open group (82.2 ± 4.3 min in endoscopic group vs 53.1 ± 2.2 min in open group, P < 0.05). There were significant differences in the incidence of incisional infection, necrosis, and lymphorrhagia in both groups (4 vs 0, 4 vs 0, and 2 vs 0, respectively, P < 0.05). The inguinal lymph node harvested was comparable between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was similar for both groups (60.4 ± 7.7 m vs 59.8 ± 7.3 m), and the recurrence mortality rates were not significantly different.
conclusionsThe study shows that both open and endoscopic methods work well for controlling penile carcinoma in the long term. But the endoscopic approach is better because it has fewer severe complications. So, the choice of surgery method might depend on factors like the surgeon's experience, what they like, and what resources are available.
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.