Observational studyAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Conventional Versus Videoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Surgical Oncology: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.
Observational study in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ASO Author Reflections: Conventional Versus Videoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Surgical Oncology-Reflections on the Surgical Challenges in Current Practice.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInguinal lymphadenectomy is an important procedure in the treatment of various stage III malignancies and is notorious for postoperative complications, such as surgical site infections, seroma formation, skin flap necrosis, and wound breakdown. This study aims to investigate complication rates after conventional inguinal lymphadenectomy (CIL) and videoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VIL) and to identify potential solutions to decrease complication rates.
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study comparing CIL with VIL. Primary outcomes were the incidence of surgical complications, severity of surgical complications, readmissions, and surgical reinterventions. Additionally, drain use, flap fixation, antibiotics, unplanned visits, and oncological outcome were compared.
resultsBetween 2010 and 2024, 30 patients underwent CIL and 25 patients underwent VIL. The median operating time for CIL was 100 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 88-119) compared with 120 minutes (IQR 105-139) for VIL (p = 0.017). The median duration of follow-up for patients in this cohort was 2.2 years (IQR 0.7-5.1). A total of 25 patients (83%) in the CIL group had at least one wound complication, compared with 13 (54%) in the VIL group (p = 0.020). Reinterventions in the first 30 postoperative days were performed in 12 patients (40%) after CIL, compared with none (0%) after VIL (p < 0.001). Disease-specific survival was not significantly different between procedures (p = 0.940).
conclusionsVIL reduced the rate of wound complications, severity of complications, and early surgical reinterventions compared with CIL but prolonged surgery time. The videoscopic procedure seems superior and offers a transformative approach that can be incorporated into contemporary surgical practice.
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.