4.3 Article

Radical lymph node dissection for melanoma

期刊

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 73, 期 5, 页码 294-299

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.t01-1-02622.x

关键词

cancer; lymphadenectomy; melanoma; regional nodal recurrence; surgery; therapeutic node dissection

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Therapeutic lymph node dissection for melanoma aims to achieve regional disease control. Radical lymphadenectomy (RLND) can be a difficult procedure associated with significant postoperative morbidity. The aims of the present study were to review regional disease control and morbidity in a series of lymphadenectomies performed within a specialist unit. Methods: The present study involved the analysis of 73 lymphadenectomies in 64 patients, from 1995 to 2001. Results: The overall wound complication rate after inguinal lymphadenectomy (71%) was higher than after axillary lymphadenectomy (47%; P = 0.05). After inguinal lymphadenectomy, the wound infection rate was higher (25.0%vs 5.9%; P = 0.03), delayed wound healing was more frequent (25.0%vs 5.9%; P = 0.03), and the mean time that drain tubes remained in situ was longer (12.5 vs 8.2 days; P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in seroma (46%vs 32%) rates. Lymphoedema was more common after inguinal lymphadenectomy (P < 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified inguinal RLND (P = 0.002) and increasing tumour size (P = 0.045) as predictors of wound morbidity. More patients received postoperative radiotherapy after neck RLND compared to inguinal or axilla RLND (P = 0.03). Six (8%) patients developed local recurrence after lymphadenectomy. At a median follow up of 22 months, 34 (53%) patients have died, from disseminated disease. Conclusions: Radical lymphadenectomy for melanoma is associated with significant morbidity. Inguinal node dissection has a higher rate of complications than axillary dissection. Low local recurrence rates can be achieved, limiting the potential morbidity of uncontrolled regional metastatic disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据