阴茎癌患者腹股沟淋巴结清扫术及其术后并发症的研究进展
Research Progress of Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection and Postoperative Complications in Patients with Penile Cancer
摘要: 阴茎癌(Penile cancer, PC)是一种较为罕见且极具侵袭性的泌尿生殖器恶性肿瘤。腹股沟淋巴结(inguinal lymph nodes, ILN)是阴茎癌最常见的早期转移部位,阴茎癌患者的预后在很大程度上取决于腹股沟淋巴结的病变程度。目前,腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(Inguinal lymph node dissection, ILND)是阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移患者的标准治疗手段。但是部分接受ILND的患者会出现包括伤口、淋巴相关的一系列术后并发症,影响患者预后。近年来,越来越多的研究者聚焦于阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术及其术后并发症。因此,本文现对阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术及其术后并发症的研究现状和进展进行综述,以期为阴茎癌患者手术方式的选择和术后并发症的防治提供新的方向。
Abstract: Penile cancer (PC) is a rare and highly aggressive genitourinary malignancy. The inguinal lymph nodes (ILN) are the most common site of early metastasis in penile cancer, and the prognosis of patients with penile cancer largely depends on the degree of inguinal lymph nodes. Currently, Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is the standard treatment for penile cancer patients with inguinal lymph node metastasis. However, some patients who receive ILND will develop a series of postoperative complications, including wound and lymphatic related complications, which affect the prognosis of patients. In recent years, more and more researchers have focused on inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer and its postoperative complications. Therefore, this article reviews the research status and progress of inguinal lymph node dissection and its postoperative complications in penile cancer, in order to provide a new direction for the selection of surgical methods and the prevention and treatment of postoperative complications in patients with penile cancer.
文章引用:杨澳逸, 蒲军. 阴茎癌患者腹股沟淋巴结清扫术及其术后并发症的研究进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(1): 522-529. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.161071

1. 背景

阴茎癌(Penile cancer, PC)是一种较为罕见且极具侵袭性的泌尿生殖系统恶性肿瘤,其发病率在男性癌症新发病例中不足1% [1] [2],其目前在世界癌症的发病率中位居第30位,死亡率为第31位[3]。阴茎癌的发病率因地区而异,其主要发生在亚洲、非洲和南美洲等地区,在美国男性癌症中占比不足1% [4]。通过国际癌症研究机构(International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC)的数据提示,2020年中国阴茎癌患者的死亡率位居世界第二[5]

阴茎癌主要是起源于阴茎头、冠状沟和包皮内板黏膜,其发病有多种因素参与,主要包括:吸烟、肥胖、包皮过长、慢性炎症、性生活紊乱、个人卫生习惯差、常接触紫外线和射线、人乳头瘤病毒(Human papillomavirus, HPV)感染以及没有进行过包皮环切术等等[6] [7]。阴茎癌在40~60岁男性中高发,早期症状不明显,常出现阴茎不明原因的瘙痒和红肿,随着疾病进展,通常表现为阴茎皮肤改变(包括阴茎菜花样肿物、肿物表面溃疡、出血流脓等),晚期则可能会出现淋巴结转移,提示预后不良[6] [8]

淋巴结转移的存在和范围是决定患者预后的重要因素,腹股沟淋巴结(inguinal lymph nodes, ILN)是阴茎癌最常见的早期转移部位[9]。有研究指出,阴茎癌无复发生存率和总体生存率在很大程度上取决于患者腹股沟淋巴结的病变程度,腹股沟淋巴结受累越严重,患者的生存率也越低[10]。目前,阴茎癌的治疗仍以手术治疗为主。对于可触及腹股沟淋巴结肿大或病理证实转移至腹股沟淋巴结的患者,腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(Inguinal lymph node dissection, ILND)是阴茎癌患者的标准治疗手段[11] [12]。腹股沟淋巴结清扫术不仅可以减少局部复发和控制淋巴结转移,还有助于分期[11] [13]。然而,由于阴茎癌多发于中老年人群,部分接受ILND的患者会出现术后并发症,包括伤口感染、皮肤坏死、淋巴相关问题等等[14]。有研究指出,接受ILND的阴茎癌患者出现术后并发症的几率高达70% [15]。近年来,关于阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术以及术后并发症的研究和探讨也逐年增加。因此,本文将围绕阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术以及术后并发症的研究现状和进展进行综述,以期为阴茎癌患者手术方式的选择和术后并发症的防治提供新的方向。

2. 阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(ILND)

2.1. ILND的适应证

阴茎癌及时发现及时治疗,通常预后较好。目前,阴茎癌最主要和最有效的治疗方式是外科手术,具体手术方法取决于病变的位置、大小和分期,主要包括:包皮环切术、阴茎局部切除术、阴茎部分切除术以及阴茎全切 + 腹股沟淋巴结清扫术[16]。腹股沟淋巴结清扫术是指通过切除腹股沟区域淋巴结来治疗或预防该区域恶性肿瘤扩散的外科手术[17]。阴茎癌扩散至区域淋巴结的5年相对生存率为51%,若扩散至远处身体部位,那么5年相对生存率可降至9%。区域淋巴结受累与阴茎癌患者的预后和生存率密切相关[10] [18]。那么,安全且彻底的腹股沟淋巴结清扫术对于清除阴茎癌患者的淋巴结转移灶和改善患者预后至关重要。

目前的指南关于阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的适应症存在一些争议。根据最新《NCCN临床实践指南:阴茎癌》[19],对阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的适应症做出了以下更新:(1) 若未触及腹股沟淋巴结,对于分期 ≥ T1b期的患者,推荐动态前哨淋巴结活检(Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy, DSNB)或改良的腹股沟淋巴结清扫,一旦检测到淋巴结转移,需进一步行患侧的根治性腹股沟淋巴结清扫术;(2) 若触及腹股沟淋巴结,并且行超声引导下穿刺活检或切除肿大淋巴结送病检阳性者,则推荐行根治性腹股沟淋巴结清扫;但是若≥3个以上腹股沟淋巴结转移,或者转移淋巴结存在淋巴结外侵犯,则推荐行盆腔淋巴结清扫;(3) 若腹股沟淋巴结固定、破溃或既往手术后复发者,推荐行新辅助化疗,肿瘤退缩良好者可行根治性髂腹股沟淋巴结清扫。ILND是一项根治性和姑息性的手术,根治性ILND的范围为:以外环上缘与髂前上棘的连线为上界,以髂前上棘与其下20 cm处的连线为外界,以耻骨结节及其下15 cm处的大腿内侧为内界,内界和外界下缘的连线为下界[2]。并且根治性淋巴结清扫的深度要求覆盖于肌肉表面的筋膜,同时需要进行骨骼化处理[20]。通常情况下,指南推荐在进行阴茎全切术后的2~6周左右可进行ILND,但是ILND的最佳治疗时机至今还没有确切的定论。不过,绝大多数的学者还是认为,对腹股沟淋巴结进行早期手术干预对改善患者预后和提高远期生存率尤为重要[21] [22]。因此,应该根据患者的具体情况,以指南为指导,开展个性化的治疗方案。

2.2. ILND的手术方式

到目前为止,ILND的术式有开放性手术和微创手术。开放性腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(Open Inguinal lymphnode dissection, OILND)首次由Daseler [23]等人报道,是90年代以来治疗阴茎癌患者腹股沟淋巴结转移的金标准,可以显著改善患者预后,但这种手术切口较大,患者在术后有较高的并发症风险[24]。近年来,腹股沟淋巴结微创手术,包括腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(video endoscopic inguinallymphadenectomy, VEIL)和机器人辅助腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(obotic-Assisted Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy, RAVEIL)逐渐兴起,由于其对患者造成的创伤小、并发症少等优点,逐渐被用于阴茎癌的治疗[25]

越来越多的研究开始聚焦于腹股沟淋巴结微创手术在治疗阴茎癌中的作用。尽管关于微创ILND的信息仍然有限,但它已被证明是安全有效的。一项研究[26]分析了接受开放性腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(OILND)和腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(VEIL)的阴茎癌患者,发现OILND组的伤口并发症比VEIL组更常见(65.6%对27.7%)。该研究提示对于阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结的处理,VEIL是安全的,与伤口相关的并发症更少,应将其视为腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的替代选择。另一项研究[27]回顾性分析了因阴茎癌接受开放和微创腹股沟淋巴结清扫术患者的病历资料,发现采用微创手术能够安全、高效地提供理想的肿瘤学效果,且并发症发生率显著低于开放手术,对于需要行腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的阴茎癌患者而言,这是一种更节省时间的手术方法。总之,对于阴茎癌的腹股沟淋巴结管理,出现了微创手术管理方案,同时在淋巴结分期和淋巴结转移治疗技术方面也有了最新的改进,这些都提高了治疗相关并发症的发生率,但并未影响肿瘤治疗的效果[25] [28]。但是,开放性ILND在有巨大腹股沟淋巴结转移且有大而固定的可触及腹股沟淋巴结的患者中作为主要治疗方法。

3. 阴茎癌ILND术后并发症

根据美国国家综合癌症网络指南,当阴茎癌转移至腹股沟淋巴结区域时,则适用腹股沟淋巴结清扫术[29]。虽然ILND有助于治疗潜在的转移性阴茎癌和帮助阴茎癌临床分期[11] [13],但是接受ILND的患者通常会出现较高的术后并发症,影响预后[15]。接受腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的患者中,手术并发症的发生率在60%至100%之间。阴茎癌ILND最常见的术后并发症包括两大类,伤口相关问题(伤口感染、延迟愈合、皮肤坏死)和淋巴相关问题(淋巴瘘、淋巴囊肿、下肢水肿)。除此之外,极少数患者可能还会出现深静脉血栓和肺血栓栓塞、血管损伤和血肿,以及神经损伤等[14] [30]。如何预防腹股沟淋巴结清扫术术后并发症、加速伤口愈合一直是泌尿外科医师面临的难题。

3.1. OILND术后并发症

开放性根治性腹股沟淋巴结清扫术从90年代以来,一直被作为治疗阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的金标准[24]。该手术主要切除包括阔筋膜表面和深面,以及外侧和上下边界内的所有淋巴结[2] [20]。虽然该手术可以有效治疗阴茎癌,但是也比较容易发生术后并发症,严重影响患者的生活质量。一项研究显示OILND的术后并发症发生率为61.7%,并且大多数并发症与伤口有关,特别是感染[31]。Seidelman [32]等人指出术后伤口感染可能与糖尿病、术前感染、吸烟史、年龄、皮肤感染史、手术时间、术后伤口护理等因素有关。由于OILND需要切除隐静脉并将血管骨骼化[20],同时可能会被过度使用,导致OILND更易发生术后并发症。一项研究[32]回顾性地纳入了接受ILND的患者,术后并发症按照Clavien-Dindo分级系统进行报告,发现最常见的早期并发症是术后积液(淋巴囊肿或血肿),最常见的晚期并发症是淋巴水肿。并提出OILND的适应症必须明确界定,才能更有效减少术后并发症的发生。

3.2. VEIL术后并发症

近年来,关于微创腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的报道也越来越多,其中就包括腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(video endoscopic inguinallymphadenectomy, VEIL)。由于其对患者造成的创伤小、并发症少等优点,逐渐取代了部分开放术式,被用于阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的治疗[25]。相对于OILND而言,VEIL的应用和效果仍在探索之中。随着VEIL的日益普及,越来越多的学者也开始聚焦于VEIL的术后并发症,以期降低术后并发症的发生。

Tobias-Machado [33]等人于2006年首次描述了VEIL,他们指出,VEIL相比于OILND手术时间缩短,住院时间减少,患者也更早恢复活动,且并发症更少。同样,另外一项研究也指出,在41例接受腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的患者中,仅有14.6%的患者出现严重并发症[34]。先前的研究也表明,使用腹腔镜手术可以降低术后伤口感染的风险,原因可能是开放手术比腹腔镜手术更容易引发更明显的炎症反应[35]。但是,近期的研究表明,与开放手术相比,VEIL方法在预防淋巴囊肿方面并没有显著优势[26] [36]。尽管目前已经有多项回顾性研究得出了一致的结论,即腹腔镜下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(VEIL)与开放性淋巴结清扫术(OILND)相比,能够提供相似的肿瘤治疗效果,且术后并发症(尤其是伤口感染和皮肤坏死)更少[34] [35],但其并发症的防治也同样需要关注。

3.3. RAVEIL术后并发症

随着腹腔镜技术的发展,RAVEIL也逐渐兴起。2009年,Josephson等人[37]首次报道了达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜下行双侧腹股沟淋巴结清扫术对阴茎癌患者的治疗。相比于传统的腹腔镜下ILND,RAVEIL可显著降低术后并发症[38]。有研究表明机器人手术不仅可以在狭小的空间里精细剥离淋巴结组织,还因为其单一的切口减少创伤,从而显著减少伤口愈合不良、伤口感染等术后并发症[39] [40]。最近的一项研究[41]通过回顾性分析行RAVEIL的阴茎癌患者的临床资料,发现RAVEIL可以显著降低术后并发症发生率,并将阴茎癌患者平均住院时间缩短至2~5 d。尽管机器人辅助腹腔镜腹股沟淋巴结清扫术相比于开放术式或普通腹腔镜术式在减少术后并发症有一定优势,但仍可能出现一些与手术相关的并发症,如淋巴瘘、皮瓣坏死、下肢水肿等[42] [43],这些并发症的发生可能与手术操作、个体差异或术后护理等因素有关。

4. 腹股沟淋巴结清扫术术后并发症的防治

近年来,如何预防腹股沟淋巴结清扫术术后并发症的发生已经成为各位学者讨论的焦点。Seidelman [44]等人指出合理且规范的手术部位消毒、控制围手术期血糖水平、使用负压伤口治疗等措施就可有效降低术后伤口感染的风险。有学者提出改进解剖和切口方法、实行动态前哨淋巴结活检、厚皮瓣技术、保留大隐静脉(great saphenous vein, GSV)、延迟ILND时间等方法来降低和避免术后并发症的发生[45]。Ravisankar [46]等人也尝试了一些改进技术来减少OILND术后积液等相关并发症,如使用组织密封剂、超声刀等,但是几乎没有成功。

除了上述防治措施外,本文也提出一些小策略,以减少ILND的并发症:(1) 针对伤口相关并发症:术前给予预防性抗生素(根据指南可选用二代头孢类),预防伤口感染;术中严格无菌操作,规范手术方式,并尽可能减少电刀对组织的热损伤,避免皮肤坏死和感染;术中设计合理切口,避免过度牵拉皮瓣而导致皮瓣损伤和坏死;术后保持切口清洁干燥,定期换药,并且早期识别红肿、发热等症状,及时使用抗生素。(2) 针对淋巴相关并发症:术前可在术区加压弹力绷带联合间断气动泵,可减少淋巴渗出;术中保留大隐静脉或采用保留淋巴管的技术(如淋巴管–静脉吻合),防止淋巴水肿;术中尽可能使用丝线结扎淋巴管和小血管,放置引流管(负压引流),以防止淋巴囊肿、淋巴瘘等并发症的发生;术后尽早抬高患肢,并注意相关护理(如合理使用弹力袜、合理进行物理治疗),减少淋巴水肿发生;术后加压包扎,引流管保留至引流量 < 30 mL/天。(3) 针对深静脉血栓:围手术期合理使用抗凝药物、术后尽早下床活动、间歇气压装置。总之,腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的术后并发症需以预防为主,通过规范化的手术技术、规范化的术后管理来显著降低术后并发症的风险。并且,个体化治疗方案和患者依从性是关键。

5. 总结与展望

阴茎癌是一种罕见的肿瘤,晚期可能会出现淋巴结转移,提示预后不良。阴茎癌最早及最常见的淋巴结转移部位是腹股沟淋巴结。外科手术仍然是阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移患者的标准治疗手段。到目前为止,阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的术式有开放性手术和微创手术。不管是开放还是微创腹股沟淋巴结清扫术,接受ILND手术的患者通常会出现较高的术后并发症,影响预后。阴茎癌ILND最常见的术后并发症包括伤口和淋巴相关问题。目前,越来越多的学者开始关注阴茎癌ILND术后并发症,并且在积极防治并发症的发生,针对患者进行个体化的治疗和防治。虽然阴茎癌ILND术后并发症的防治已经取得了很大的进步,但是还有很长的路要走。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Giona, S. (2022) The Epidemiology of Penile Cancer. In: Barber, N. and Ali, A., Eds., Urologic Cancers, Exon Publications, 131-139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] 黄健, 张旭. 中国泌尿外科和男科疾病诊断治疗指南[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2024: 245-271.
[3] Douglawi, A. and Masterson, T.A. (2019) Penile Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors: A Contemporary Review. Current Opinion in Urology, 29, 145-149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Fuchs, H.E. and Jemal, A. (2022) Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 72, 7-33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Fu, L., Tian, T., Yao, K., Chen, X., Luo, G., Gao, Y., et al. (2022) Global Pattern and Trends in Penile Cancer Incidence: Population-Based Study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8, e34874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Abozaid, M., Tan, W.S., Khetrapal, P., Baker, H., Duncan, J., Sridhar, A., et al. (2021) Recovery of Health‐Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Robot‐Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Diversion. BJU International, 129, 72-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Emmanuel, A., Nettleton, J., Watkin, N. and Berney, D.M. (2019) The Molecular Pathogenesis of Penile Carcinoma—Current Developments and Understanding. Virchows Archiv, 475, 397-405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Deng, X., Liu, Y., Zhan, X., Chen, T., Jiang, M., Jiang, X., et al. (2022) Trends in Incidence, Mortality, and Survival of Penile Cancer in the United States: A Population-Based Study. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, Article 891623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Wood, H.M. and Angermeier, K.W. (2010) Anatomic Considerations of the Penis, Lymphatic Drainage, and Biopsy of the Sentinel Node. Urologic Clinics of North America, 37, 327-334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Leijte, J.A.P., Kerst, J.M., Bais, E., Antonini, N. and Horenblas, S. (2007) Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Penile Carcinoma. European Urology, 52, 488-494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Shao, Y., Hu, X., Ren, S., Liao, D., Yang, Z., Liu, Y., et al. (2022) Comparison of Different Surgical Methods and Strategies for Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Penile Cancer. Scientific Reports, 12, Article No. 2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Marconnet, L., Rigaud, J. and Bouchot, O. (2010) Long-Term Follow-Up of Penile Carcinoma with High Risk for Lymph Node Invasion Treated with Inguinal Lymphadenectomy. Journal of Urology, 183, 2227-2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Nabavizadeh, R., Petrinec, B., Necchi, A., Tsaur, I., Albersen, M. and Master, V. (2020) Utility of Minimally Invasive Technology for Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, Article 2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Velazquez, N., Press, B., Renson, A., Wysock, J.S., Taneja, S., Huang, W.C., et al. (2019) Development of a Novel Prognostic Risk Score for Predicting Complications of Penectomy in the Surgical Management of Penile Cancer. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 17, e123-e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Koifman, L., Hampl, D., Koifman, N., Vides, A.J. and Ornellas, A.A. (2013) Radical Open Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Penile Carcinoma: Surgical Technique, Early Complications and Late Outcomes. Journal of Urology, 190, 2086-2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] 尹皓立, 江海洋, 白宇, 等. 2024年阴茎癌诊治进展[J]. 泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 17(1): 68-72.
[17] Correa, A.F. (2021) Technical Management of Inguinal Lymph-Nodes in Penile Cancer: Open versus Minimal Invasive. Translational Andrology and Urology, 10, 2264-2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] O’Brien, J.S., McVey, A., Kelly, B.D., Chee, J. and Lawrentschuk, N. (2022) Recent Developments in the Diagnosis and Management of N1 Penile Cancer. Current Opinion in Urology, 33, 64-69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2026) NCCN Guidelines: Penile Cancer Version 1.
https://www.nccnchina.org.cn/guide/detail/992
[20] Leone, A., Diorio, G.J., Pettaway, C., Master, V. and Spiess, P.E. (2017) Contemporary Management of Patients with Penile Cancer and Lymph Node Metastasis. Nature Reviews Urology, 14, 335-347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Chipollini, J., Tang, D.H., Gilbert, S.M., Poch, M.A., Pow-Sang, J.M., Sexton, W.J., et al. (2017) Delay to Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Greater than 3 Months Predicts Poorer Recurrence-Free Survival for Patients with Penile Cancer. Journal of Urology, 198, 1346-1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Kroon, B.K., Horenblas, S., Lont, A.P., Tanis, P.J., Gallee, M.P.W. and Nieweg, O.E. (2005) Patients with Penile Carcinoma Benefit from Immediate Resection of Clinically Occult Lymph Node Metastases. Journal of Urology, 173, 816-819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Daseler, E.H., Anson, B.J. and Reimann, A.F. (1948) Radical Excision of the Inguinal and Iliac Lymph Glands: A Study Based Upon 450 Anatomical Dissections and Upon Supportive Clinical Observations. Surgical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 87, 679-694.
[24] 邓康俐, 崔殿生, 魏卓, 等. 腹腔镜与开放下腹股沟淋巴结清扫术在阴茎癌治疗中的临床疗效比较[J]. 肿瘤, 2023, 43(1): 16-28.
[25] Hu, J., Li, H., Cui, Y., Liu, P., Zhou, X., Liu, L., et al. (2019) Comparison of Clinical Feasibility and Oncological Outcomes between Video Endoscopic and Open Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine, 98, e15862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Thyavihally, Y.B., Dev, P., Waigankar, S.S., Pednekar, A., Kulkarni, B., Sharma, A., et al. (2021) Comparative Study of Perioperative and Survival Outcomes after Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and Open Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection (O-ILND) in the Management of Inguinal Lymph Nodes in Carcinoma of the Penis. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 15, 905-914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Ma, S., Zhang, K., Li, R., Lu, J., Wu, T., Liu, Z., et al. (2022) Bilateral Inguinal Lymphadenectomy Using Simultaneous Double Laparoscopies for Penile Cancer: A Retrospective Study. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 40, 112.e1-112.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] 孙洋洋. 3D腹腔镜与开放术式腹股沟淋巴结清扫治疗阴茎癌的效果比较[J]. 河南医学研究, 2025, 34(8): 1411-1414.
[29] Spiess, P.E. (2013) New Treatment Guidelines for Penile Cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 11, 659-662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Stuiver, M.M., Djajadiningrat, R.S., Graafland, N.M., Vincent, A.D., Lucas, C. and Horenblas, S. (2013) Early Wound Complications after Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Penile Cancer: A Historical Cohort Study and Risk-Factor Analysis. European Urology, 64, 486-492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Ravi, R. (1993) Morbidity Following Groin Dissection for Penile Carcinoma. British Journal of Urology, 72, 941-945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Wever, L., de Vries, H.M., Dell’Oglio, P., van der Poel, H.G., Donswijk, M.L., Sikorska, K., et al. (2022) Incidence and Risk Factor Analysis of Complications after Sentinel Node Biopsy for Penile Cancer. BJU International, 130, 486-495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Tobias-Machado, M., Tavares, A., Molina Jr, W.R., Forseto Jr, P.H., Juliano, R.V. and Wroclawski, E.R. (2006) Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL): Minimally Invasive Resection of Inguinal Lymph Nodes. International braz j urol, 32, 316-321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Master, V.A., Jafri, S.M.A., Moses, K.A., Ogan, K., Kooby, D.A. and Delman, K.A. (2012) Minimally Invasive Inguinal Lymphadenectomy via Endoscopic Groin Dissection: Comprehensive Assessment of Immediate and Long-Term Complications. Journal of Urology, 188, 1176-1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Sotelo, R., Sánchez-Salas, R., Carmona, O., Garcia, A., Mariano, M., Neiva, G., et al. (2007) Endoscopic Lymphadenectomy for Penile Carcinoma. Journal of Endourology, 21, 364-367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Yadav, S.S., Tomar, V., Bhattar, R., Jha, A.K. and Priyadarshi, S. (2018) Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy vs Open Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Carcinoma Penis: Expanding Role and Comparison of Outcomes. Urology, 113, 79-84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Josephson, D.Y., Jacobsohn, K.M., Link, B.A. and Wilson, T.G. (2009) Robotic-Assisted Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy. Urology, 73, 167-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Gkegkes, I.D., Minis, E.E. and Iavazzo, C. (2018) Robotic-assisted Inguinal Lymphadenectomy: A Systematic Review. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 13, 1-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] 黄天, 魏勇, 陈星梅, 等. 经腹膜外入路单孔手术机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术护理配合的初步经验[J]. 机器人外科学杂志(中英文), 2024, 5(1): 25-30.
[40] Oonk, M.H.M., Planchamp, F., Baldwin, P., Mahner, S., Mirza, M.R., Fischerová, D., et al. (2023) European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Vulvar Cancer—Update 2023. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 33, 1023-1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41] 阳孟君, 邓春燕, 魏灵, 等. 顺行机器人辅助腹腔镜下阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的临床研究[J]. 陆军军医大学学报, 2022, 44(8): 824-828.
[42] Pandolfo, S.D., Biasatti, A., Parnham, A., Autorino, R. and Brouwer, O.R. (2025) Current Role of Robotic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Penile Cancer. European Urology Focus, 11, 43-45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43] Patel, K.N., Salunke, A., Bakshi, G., Jayaprakash, D. and Pandya, S.J. (2022) Robotic-Assisted Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) and Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) versus Open Inguinal Lymph-Node Dissection (OILND) in Carcinoma of Penis: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes, Complications and Oncological Outcomes. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 40, 112.e11-112.e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[44] Seidelman, J.L., Mantyh, C.R. and Anderson, D.J. (2023) Surgical Site Infection Prevention. JAMA, 329, 244-252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[45] Spiess, P.E., Hernandez, M.S. and Pettaway, C.A. (2008) Contemporary Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: Minimizing Complications. World Journal of Urology, 27, 205-212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[46] Ravisankar, P., Malik, K., Raja, A. and Narayanaswamy, K. (2021) Clipping Inguinal Lymphatics Decreases Lymphorrhoea after Lymphadenectomy Following Cancer Treatment: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial. Scandinavian Journal of Urology, 55, 480-485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]