Indian Journal of Urology Users online:1078  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 91-92
 

Re: Singh A et al. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol 2017;33:304-9


1 Department of Urology, Catalca Ilyas Cokay State Hospital, Catalca, Turkey
2 Department of Urology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey

Date of Submission28-Nov-2017
Date of Acceptance17-Dec-2017
Date of Web Publication29-Dec-2017

Correspondence Address:
Mustafa Zafer Temiz
Department of Urology, Catalca Ilyas Cokay State Hospital, Catalca
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_341_17

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Temiz MZ, Cakir OO, Kandirali E, Semercioz A. Re: Singh A et al. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol 2017;33:304-9. Indian J Urol 2018;34:91-2

How to cite this URL:
Temiz MZ, Cakir OO, Kandirali E, Semercioz A. Re: Singh A et al. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol 2017;33:304-9. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Nov 18];34:91-2. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2018/34/1/91/221974


Dear Editor,

We read with interest the recent article by Singh et al.[1] on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) in testicular cancer patients with postchemotherapy residual mass. We congratulate the authors and wish to highlight some issues.

Although the authors claimed that their study is the largest case series of RA-RPLND in patients with postchemotherapy residual mass (13 cases), a similar study including 12 patients was published by Kamel et al.[2] in 2016. However, literature about RA-RPLND in residual disease after chemotherapy is still very limited. Open RPLND (O-RPLND) is accepted as the gold standard method for RPLND in testicular cancer patients. But, to the best of our knowledge there is no study comparing the RA-RPLND with O-RPLND.[3] The aim of the current study is clearly identified as evaluating the surgical feasibility and outcomes of RA-RPLND for postchemotherapy residual mass in patients with testicular cancer. However, we believe that in this study, the authors could have compared RA-RPLND and O-RPLND as some O-RPLND cases were performed during the same period at the same institution. In the conclusion section, the authors state that RA-RPLND is a promising alternative to O-RPLND. They also concluded that RA-RPLND has similar surgical, oncological outcome and lymph node yield. How was this comparison made? With O-RPLND or previous studies about RA-RPLND? We think that comparing RA-RPLND and O-RPLND would be better than comparing RA-RPLND with data of previous reports. On the other hand, the reported chyle leak rate (30.7%) is higher than expected in comparison with the literature that reports an overall 7%–20.8% incidence.[4] The authors explained this to be due to difficulty in identification of lymphatic in the postchemotherapy setting. However, previously, Evans et al.[5] reported the overall incidence of chyle leak as 7% in O-RPLND for postchemotherapy residual mass. Thus the safety of RA-RPLND cannot be superior and we believe that the best inferences on safety and efficacy of RA-RPLND may be derived in a study comparing it with O-RPLND. If the authors had compared RA-RPLND and O-RPLND, this study would have been enriched.

Respectfully

Financial support and sponsorship:

Nil.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Singh A, Chatterjee S, Bansal P, Bansal A, Rawal S. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol 2017;33:304-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Kamel MH, Littlejohn N, Cox M, Eltahawy EA, Davis R. Post-chemotherapy robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Institutional experience. J Endourol 2016;30:510-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Torricelli FC, Jardim D, Guglielmetti GB, Patel V, Coelho RF. Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular tumor. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43:171.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Lv S, Wang Q, Zhao W, Han L, Wang Q, Batchu N, et al. A review of the postoperative lymphatic leakage. Oncotarget 2017;8:69062-75.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Evans JG, Spiess PE, Kamat AM, Wood CG, Hernandez M, Pettaway CA, et al. Chylous ascites after post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Review of the M. D. Anderson experience. J Urol 2006;176:1463-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (277 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2358    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA