JUSTIFICATION OF INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY IN MANAGEMENT OF CARCINOMA PENIS

Journal Title: Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare - Year 2019, Vol 6, Issue 19

Abstract

BACKGROUND Diagnosing penile cancer and grading the same with available diagnostic tools is not difficult, but the problem lies in the management and more so in groin node dissection. Lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice in patients presenting with positive node at the time of diagnosis, but problem arises in deciding node negative patients. Our aim was to evaluate role of prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of penis. METHODS This was a prospective study carried out at MKCG Medical College and Hospital from 2012 to 2017. The clinical, diagnostic and follow-up data were collected from patient records. RESULTS A total 30 cases of penile carcinoma were included in the present study. Youngest patient was 29 years of age and oldest was of 78 years. 18 patients showed inguinal lymphadenopathy at the time of diagnosis. FNAC showed node positivity in 10 cases. 2 out of 8 cytologically negative lymph nodes for metastatic deposits came out to be positive after biopsy. Histologically majority diagnosed as moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and were in stage 2. 2 patients diagnosed as verrucous carcinoma. Radical inguinal lymphadenectomy was done in all patients with cytologically proven metastatic deposits, modified radical dissection done in cytologically negative lymphadenopathy cases. In remaining patients of carcinoma penis, without inguinal node involvement, an individualistic approach was undertaken. CONCLUSIONS In node positive cases, inguinal node dissection should be carried out, but in node negative cases decision should be more individualistic. It is better to go for a modified radical dissection even with negative node, as it is commonly seen in our set up that patients are lost to follow up. But it should be carried out in a judicious way with an individualistic approach as groin dissection is a mutilating surgery with many complications and decision making is a complex issue though we have many available clinical and pathological criteria.

Authors and Affiliations

Inuganti Gopal, Sumita Tripathy

Keywords

Related Articles

CRITICAL CARE MANAGEMENT OF THIRD STAGE COMPLICATION: ACUTE PUERPERAL UTERINE INVERSION

Acute puerperal uterine inversion is a rare complication of third stage of labour. When it occurs it is life threatening obstetric emergency and usually associated with post-partum hemorrhage and shock. Condition should...

URINE PROTEIN CREATININE RATIO AS A PREDICTOR OF DIABETIC RETINOPATHY IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS

BACKGROUND Evidence of early diabetic nephropathy can be quantified by either urinary Protein Creatinine Ratio (PCR) or 24-hour urinary protein estimation, the latter being the gold standard. Proteinuria is directly link...

VERMIFORM APPENDIX IN ADULTS

Aim of our present study was to observe variations of Position of vermiform appendix in local population primarily in adults. Totally 50 adult cadavers were dissected during last 3 years for under graduates in the Depart...

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OVARIAN RESERVE TESTS AND OVARIAN RESPONSE TO CONTROLLED OVARIAN STIMULATION IN IVF

BACKGROUND Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and optimum retrieval of fertilizable oocytes is crucial for IVF success. Ovarian response to COS is related to ovarian reserve (OR)- size of primordial follicular pool cap...

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LABETALOL VERSUS METHYLDOPA IN THE TREATMENT OF PREECLAMPSIA

BACKGROUND To compare the efficacy and safety of labetalol versus Methyldopa in the management of preeclampsia. METHODOLOGY 100 pregnant women with preeclampsia were randomly assigned, 50 were treated with labetalol (Gro...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP619804
  • DOI 10.18410/jebmh/2019/295
  • Views 84
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Inuganti Gopal, Sumita Tripathy (2019). JUSTIFICATION OF INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY IN MANAGEMENT OF CARCINOMA PENIS. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare, 6(19), 1448-1451. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-619804