Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A Comparative Study of Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy and Conventional Open Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Treating Vulvar Cancer
  1. Menglei Zhang, MD,
  2. Limei Chen, MD,
  3. Xuyin Zhang, MD, PhD,
  4. Jingxin Ding, MD, PhD and
  5. Keqin Hua, MD, PhD
  1. Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Female Reproductive Endocrine Related Diseases, Shanghai, China.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jingxin Ding, MD, PhD, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, 128 Shen-Yang Rd, Shanghai 200090, P.R. China. E-mail: djxdd{at}sina.com; or Keqin Hua, MD, PhD, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, 128 Shen-Yang Rd, Shanghai 200090, P.R. China. E-mail: huakeqinjiaoshou{at}163.com.

Abstract

Objective This study aims to compare the complications, oncological outcomes, cosmetic satisfaction, and quality of life experienced by women with vulvar cancer undergoing video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) versus conventional open inguinal lymphadenectomy (COIL).

Patients and Methods Forty-eight consecutive patients with vulvar cancer who underwent COIL (n = 27) or VEIL (n = 21) at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China between 2003 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The perioperative data, postoperative complications, oncological outcomes, cosmetic satisfaction, and quality of life of the COIL and VEIL groups were compared.

Results Twenty patients (74.1%) in the COIL group and 19 patients (90.5%) in the VEIL group returned for follow-up after the operation. The median follow-up time was 73 months (8–162 months) for the COIL group and 28 months (8–58 months) for the VEIL group. The inguinal lymph node yield in the VEIL group was comparable with that in the COIL group (15 ± 5 vs 18 ± 6, P = 0.058). The VEIL and COIL groups had a similar 2-year recurrence rate (10.5% vs 10%, P = 0.957) and 2-year disease-specific survival rate (95.5% vs 93.3%, P = 0.724). The wound complication rate was significantly lower in the VEIL group than the COIL group (4.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.000). The VEIL group had higher body image scores (16.27 ± 1.20 vs 13.16 ± 0.87, P < 0.0001) and cosmetic scores (20.13 ± 0.98 vs 16.92 ± 0.72, P < 0.0001) than the COIL group. The patients in the VEIL group had higher life quality scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Vulvar questionnaire than those in the COIL group (165.9 ± 6.3 vs 160.5 ± 6.0, P = 0.026).

Conclusions Compared with COIL, VEIL can effectively reduce postoperative wound complications and improve patients' cosmetic satisfaction and life quality without compromising therapeutic efficacy. Hence, we believe that VEIL is a good alternative to COIL for vulvar cancer patients when surgical expertise is available.

  • Vulvar cancer
  • Inguinal lymphadenectomy
  • Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy
  • Conventional open inguinal lymphadenectomy

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.