eMedicine Specialties > Urology > Surgery

Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal: Treatment

Author: Jared M Whitson, MD, Resident, Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco
Coauthor(s): Maxwell Meng, MD, Associate Professor-in-Residence, Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Nov 14, 2008

Treatment

Surgical Therapy

Clinical stage I disease

Patients who choose retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) over surveillance and chemotherapy are candidates for ipsilateral modified nerve-sparing RPLND. If minimal retroperitoneal disease is discovered, the surgeon may choose to perform a full ipsilateral dissection, although nerve-sparing is still likely to be performed. The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques has provided the opportunity to perform L-RPLND, both template and nerve-sparing. However, debate persists regarding whether L-RPLND is merely a diagnostic staging procedure or yields cancer control comparable to that of open RPLND in the 30% of patients with pathologic stage II disease. The nodal count possible with L-RPLND and the adherence to the template format are persistent questions.

A recent review of the literature identified 333 patients who underwent L-RPLND for stage I disease.32 Positive nodes were found in 22% of patients, 97% of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy. Only a 0.3% incidence of retroperitoneal recurrence occurred, again with the caveat that the vast majority of patients with pathologic stage II disease received chemotherapy.

Clinical stage II disease

Patients with low-volume stage II disease who undergo primary RPLND are also candidates for ipsilateral modified nerve-sparing RPLND. Candidates for primary RPLND include patients with normal tumor marker levels, adenopathy smaller than 2 cm in diameter within the primary landing zone, and the absence of multiple enlarged lymph nodes.33 However, in this case, if the clinical stage is underestimated and high-volume stage II disease is detected, the surgeon should perform a full ipsilateral dissection. Once again, the sympathetic nerves can be prospectively identified and preserved.

Many patients with clinical stage IIB disease who undergo initial chemotherapy have residual retroperitoneal masses and require salvage RPLND. Recently, both Janetschek et al34 and Kavoussi35 reported series of patients in whom L-RPLND in this setting was successful. A recent review of the literature identified 117 patients who underwent L-RPLND in the setting of clinical stage II disease or postchemotherapy.32 Viable NSGCT was found in 6.8%, with teratoma identified in 23%. Recurrence occurred in 5.1% of patients, with the location of recurrence not reported in most instances.

Clinical stage IIc/III disease

Patients with residual masses following chemotherapy for advanced disease usually require standard RPLND with full bilateral dissection from the crura of the diaphragm to below the aortic bifurcation. Proponents of this method argue that 7-32% of patients will have tumor or teratoma outside a modified template, with decreasing percentages associated with decreased prechemotherapy clinical staging.36 In initial experience, Rassweiller et al found a high open conversion rate with postchemotherapy L-RPLND.37

Preoperative Details

Preoperative preparation for RPLND involves obtaining informed consent and arranging a mechanical bowel preparation. Type and crossmatch for possible blood transfusion, especially in preparation for complex RPLND. In patients exposed to chemotherapy, WBC and platelet counts should be within the reference range or stabilized prior to surgery. Preoperatively evaluate patients receiving bleomycin with pulmonary function testing. Preoperatively evaluate patients with comorbid disease presentations (eg, renal insufficiency, anemia, heart conditions, liver pathology) with the appropriate consultations and/or laboratory studies.

Patients who have received bleomycin as a component of chemotherapy should probably undergo pulmonary function testing to evaluate for restrictive pulmonary fibrosis. Low inspired oxygen levels were once recommended during surgery; however, the most predictive factors for pulmonary complications include transfusion and total intravenous fluids.38 Therefore, fluids must be limited to the greatest degree possible during and after surgery.

Intraoperative Details

From the time of its inception, RPLND has undergone many modifications and enhancements. Today, the two most popular approaches are the transabdominal and thoracoabdominal techniques. A laparoscopic alternative to the open procedure has been reported, but is limited to a few centers in the United States and Europe with significant laparoscopic experience.

The thoracoabdominal approach offers good exposure to the upper retroperitoneum and exposes the renal hilum in the center of the operating field. This procedure is useful in patients with advanced disease, who may present with a large retroperitoneal mass. This approach also allows for a complete suprahilar dissection, as well as the opportunity to easily access the retrocrural lymph nodes. Another advantage of this approach for RPLND is that it can be performed completely extraperitoneally in patients with lower-stage disease. This decreases the risks of small-bowel obstruction and ileus.

The second most common approach to RPLND is the transabdominal incision. This modification allows for faster opening and closing time. Additionally, this approach allows for good exposure to the suprahilar region, at the expense of mobilization of the pancreas and spleen. Advantages of a midline transperitoneal approach include familiarity and comfort for the surgeon and tolerable morbidity for the patient.

Currently, at the authors' institution, L-RPLND is used for select patients with low-stage disease. The procedure mimics the open operation in order to obtain similar oncologic and functional outcomes. A 4-port, transperitoneal technique is used, similar to that for laparoscopic nephrectomy. The authors perform a modified template operation with prospective nerve-sparing, adhering to the boundaries for each side outlined below. Intraoperative frozen-section analysis of the lymphatic tissue is used to determine whether the dissection is carried out to extended boundaries or an open conversion is necessary.

Right-sided modified template primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection

The limits of dissection for the modified template RPLND on the right side (see Image 1) include the right ureter, the renal veins, the lateral edge of the aorta, the IMA, and the ipsilateral iliac artery, where the ureter crosses. Note that the interaortocaval and retrocaval tissue is completely removed.

Left-sided modified template primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection

The limits of dissection for the modified template RPLND on the left side (see Image 2) include the left ureter, left renal vein, left edge of vena cava, IMA, and ipsilateral iliac artery, where the ureter crosses. Again, the interaortocaval tissue is included with the retroaortic lymphatics.

Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection

Postchemotherapy RPLND typically entails full bilateral dissection of retroperitoneal lymphatics (see Images 3-4). This procedure involves removal of lymphatic tissue between both ureters, spanning from the diaphragmatic crus to the bifurcation of the common iliac arteries. The rationale for this extended region of dissection is the greater likelihood of bilateral disease with greater tumor burden. However, some patients with smaller-volume, localized disease within the primary landing site may be candidates for less-extensive RPLND.

Postoperative Details

Provide routine postoperative care. Patients should receive an appropriate amount of intravenous fluid replacements for the first 24-48 hours because of third-spacing.

Postoperative ileus is minimized with the retroperitoneal approach, and most patients are discharged within 3-6 days. If ileus is encountered, institute nasogastric suction for several days until symptoms resolve.

The pulmonary function in patients undergoing postchemotherapy RPLND should be closely monitored since they may have received bleomycin. Minimizing inspired oxygen concentration and intravenous fluids limits the risk of respiratory distress.

Follow-up

All patients with testicular cancer, regardless of stage, require frequent follow-up care. Many different follow-up protocols exist, and they vary depending on the clinical and pathologic stage and whether the patient is on a surveillance, post-RPLND, or post-chemotherapy protocol.

Most protocols involve history taking, physical examination (including examination of the contralateral testis), assessment of serum tumor markers, chest radiography, and abdominal imaging. After RPLND, postoperative baseline CT scanning, along with chest radiography, examinations, and assessment of serum tumor markers, is recommended every 2-3 months for the first 2 years, every 4 months for the subsequent 2 years, every 6 months for the fifth year, and yearly thereafter.

Complications

Complications of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) vary widely and can include injuries to major vascular structures such as the aorta and vena cava; to solid organs including the liver, kidney, and pancreas; and to smaller tubular structures such as the ureters and cisterna chyli.

Most of these injuries can be managed with primary repair and conservative management, which may include placement of a nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent, prolonged drainage of lymphatic fluid, and modified low-fat diets.

The overall complication rates of primary RPLND and postchemotherapy RPLND vary but probably lie between 1% and 5% for major complications and around 15% for minor complications (eg, wound infection, urinary tract infection, ileus).

  • Chylous ascites - 1-3%
  • Renovascular injury - 1-3%
  • Small-bowel obstruction - 1-3%
  • Spinal cord ischemia - Less than 1%

More on Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal

Overview: Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal
Workup: Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal
Treatment: Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal
Follow-up: Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal
Multimedia: Lymph Node Dissection, Retroperitoneal
References
[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

References

  1. ROBSON CJ. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. Jan 1963;89:37-42. [Medline].

  2. Blom JH, van Poppel H, Marechal JM, Jacqmin D, Sylvester R, Schröder FH, et al. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph node dissection: preliminary results of the EORTC randomized phase III protocol 30881. EORTC Genitourinary Group. Eur Urol. Dec 1999;36(6):570-5. [Medline].

  3. Chapman TN, Sharma S, Zhang S, Wong MK, Kim HL. Laparoscopic lymph node dissection in clinically node-negative patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal carcinoma. Urology. Feb 2008;71(2):287-91. [Medline].

  4. Simmons MN, Kaouk J, Gill IS, Fergany A. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with hilar lymph node dissection in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Urology. Jul 2007;70(1):43-6. [Medline].

  5. Brausi MA, Gavioli M, De Luca G, Verrini G, Peracchia G, Simonini G, et al. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLD) in conjunction with nephroureterectomy in the treatment of infiltrative transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the upper urinary tract: impact on survival. Eur Urol. Nov 2007;52(5):1414-8. [Medline].

  6. Jamieson JK, Dobson JF. The lymphatics of the testicle. Lancet. 1910;1:493.

  7. Rouvier H. Lymphatic system of. the abdomen and pelvis. Anatomy of the human lymphatic system. 1938.

  8. Hinman F, Gibson TE, Kutzmann AA. Radical operation for teratoma testis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1923;37:429-451.

  9. Cooper JF, Leadbetter WH, Chute R. The thoracoabdominal approach for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: Its application to testis tumors. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1950;90:486.

  10. Busch FM, Sayegh ES, Chenault OW Jr. Some uses of Lymphangiography in the Management of testicular tumors. J Urol. Apr 1965;93:490-5. [Medline].

  11. Chiappa S, Uslenghi C, Bonadonna G, Marano P, Ravasi G. Combined testicular and foot lymphangiography in testicular carcinomas. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Jul 1966;123(1):10-4. [Medline].

  12. Skinner DG, Leadbetter WF. The surgical management of testis tumors. J Urol. Jul 1971;106(1):84-93. [Medline].

  13. Donohue JP. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: the anterior approach including bilateral suprarenal-hilar dissection. Urol Clin North Am. Oct 1977;4(3):509-21. [Medline].

  14. Narayan P, Lange PH, Fraley EE. Ejaculation and fertility after extended retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. J Urol. Apr 1982;127(4):685-8. [Medline].

  15. Richie JP. Clinical stage 1 testicular cancer: the role of modified retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. J Urol. Nov 1990;144(5):1160-3. [Medline].

  16. Donohue JP, Thornhill JA, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for clinical stage A testis cancer (1965 to 1989): modifications of technique and impact on ejaculation. J Urol. Feb 1993;149(2):237-43. [Medline].

  17. Rukstalis DB, Chodak GW. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a patient with stage 1 testicular carcinoma. J Urol. Dec 1992;148(6):1907-9; discussion 1909-10. [Medline].

  18. Janetschek G, Hobisch A, Peschel R. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular carcinoma: long-term outcome. J Urol. Jun 2000;163(6):1793-6. [Medline].

  19. Peschel R, Gettman MT, Neururer R, Hobisch A, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: description of the nerve-sparing technique. Urology. Aug 2002;60(2):339-43; discussion 343. [Medline].

  20. Nicolai N, Pizzocaro G. A surveillance study of clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: 10-year followup. J Urol. Sep 1995;154(3):1045-9. [Medline].

  21. Sogani PC, Perrotti M, Herr HW, Fair WR, Thaler HT, Bosl G. Clinical stage I testis cancer: long-term outcome of patients on surveillance. J Urol. Mar 1998;159(3):855-8. [Medline].

  22. Lashley DB, Lowe BA. A rational approach to managing stage I nonseminomatous germ cell cancer. Urol Clin North Am. Aug 1998;25(3):405-23. [Medline].

  23. Hoskin P, Dilly S, Easton D, Horwich A, Hendry W, Peckham MJ. Prognostic factors in stage I non-seminomatous germ-cell testicular tumors managed by orchiectomy and surveillance: implications for adjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. Jul 1986;4(7):1031-6. [Medline].

  24. Heidenreich A, Sesterhenn IA, Mostofi FK, Moul JW. Prognostic risk factors that identify patients with clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors at low risk and high risk for metastasis. Cancer. Sep 1 1998;83(5):1002-11. [Medline].

  25. Steele GS, Richie JP. Current role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). May 1997;11(5):717-29; discussion 730-37 passim. [Medline].

  26. Swanson DA. Should chemotherapy replace retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for clinical stage II testicular tumors?. Mayo Clin Proc. Sep 1995;70(9):911-3. [Medline].

  27. Stomper PC, Kalish LA, Garnick MB, Richie JP, Kantoff PW. CT and pathologic predictive features of residual mass histologic findings after chemotherapy for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: can residual malignancy or teratoma be excluded?. Radiology. Sep 1991;180(3):711-4. [Medline].

  28. Donohue JP, Rowland RG. Complications of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol. Mar 1981;125(3):338-40. [Medline].

  29. Loehrer PJ Sr, Hui S, Clark S, Seal M, Einhorn LH, Williams SD. Teratoma following cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: a clinicopathological correlation. J Urol. Jun 1986;135(6):1183-9. [Medline].

  30. Stephenson AJ, Bosl GJ, Bajorin DF, Stasi J, Motzer RJ, Sheinfeld J. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with low stage testicular cancer with embryonal carcinoma predominance and/or lymphovascular invasion. J Urol. Aug 2005;174(2):557-60; discussion 560. [Medline].

  31. Beck SD, Foster RS, Bihrle R, Donohue JP, Einhorn LH. Is full bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection always necessary for postchemotherapy residual tumor?. Cancer. Sep 15 2007;110(6):1235-40. [Medline].

  32. Finelli A. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: long-term oncologic outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. Mar 2008;18(2):180-4. [Medline].

  33. Stephenson AJ, Bosl GJ, Motzer RJ, Bajorin DF, Stasi JP, Sheinfeld J. Nonrandomized comparison of primary chemotherapy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage IIA and IIB nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol. Dec 10 2007;25(35):5597-602. [Medline].

  34. Albqami N, Janetschek G. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in the management of clinical stage I and II testicular cancer. J Endourol. Jul-Aug 2005;19(6):683-92; discussion 692. [Medline].

  35. Bhayani SB, Ong A, Oh WK, Kantoff PW, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a long-term update. Urology. Aug 2003;62(2):324-7. [Medline].

  36. Carver BS, Shayegan B, Eggener S, Stasi J, Motzer RJ, Bosl GJ, et al. Incidence of metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor outside the boundaries of a modified postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Clin Oncol. Oct 1 2007;25(28):4365-9. [Medline].

  37. Rassweiler JJ, Frede T, Lenz E, Seemann O, Alken P. Long-term experience with laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the management of low-stage testis cancer. Eur Urol. Mar 2000;37(3):251-60. [Medline].

  38. Donat SM, Levy DA. Bleomycin associated pulmonary toxicity: is perioperative oxygen restriction necessary?. J Urol. Oct 1998;160(4):1347-52. [Medline].

  39. Albers P, Orazi A, Ulbright TM, Miller GA, Haidar JH, Donohue JP, et al. Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical proliferation markers (Ki-67/MIB-1 and proliferation-associated nuclear antigen), p53 protein accumulation, and neovascularization in clinical stage A nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumors. Mod Pathol. Jun 1995;8(5):492-7. [Medline].

  40. de Riese W, Walker EB, de Riese C, Ulbright TM, Crabtree WN, Messemer J, et al. Quantitative DNA measurement by flow cytometry and image analysis of human nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumors. Urol Res. 1994;22(4):213-20. [Medline].

  41. Moul JW, Foley JP, Hitchcock CL, McCarthy WF, Sesterhenn IA, Becker RL, et al. Flow cytometric and quantitative histological parameters to predict occult disease in clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumors. J Urol. Sep 1993;150(3):879-83. [Medline].

  42. Foster RS, Nichols CR. Testicular cancer: what's new in staging, prognosis, and therapy. Oncology (Williston Park). Dec 1999;13(12):1689-94; discussion 1697-700, 1703. [Medline].

  43. Schrader AJ, Seger M, Konrad L, Olbert P, Hegele A, Hofmann R, et al. Clinical impact of MDR1-expression in testicular germ cell cancer. Exp Oncol. Sep 2007;29(3):212-6. [Medline].

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Further Reading

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Keywords

retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, RPLND, testicular cancer, testicular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, nonseminomatous germ cell tumor, NSGCT, metastatic testicular tumors, seminomatous germ cell tumor, nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, nerve-sparing RPLND, lymphangiography, thoracoabdominal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, bilateral retroperitoneal dissection, suprahilar dissection, split-and-roll technique, bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, laparoscopic RPLND, L-RPLND, laparoscopic nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, ipsilateral modified nerve-sparing RPLND

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Jared M Whitson, MD, Resident, Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco
Jared M Whitson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for Cancer Research, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Urological Association, and Endourological Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Maxwell Meng, MD, Associate Professor-in-Residence, Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco
Maxwell Meng, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, Paul Mellon Professor of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Cancer Society, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Medical Society of Virginia, Society for Basic Urologic Research, and Society of Urologic Oncology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

J Stuart Wolf Jr, MD, FACS, David A Bloom Professor of Urology, Director of Division of Minimally Invasive Urology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan
J Stuart Wolf Jr, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Catholic Medical Association, Endourological Society, Society for Urology and Engineering, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists, and Society of Urologic Oncology
Disclosure: Terumo Corporation Consulting fee Consulting; Omeros Corporation Consulting fee Consulting

Chief Editor

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS, Associate Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine
Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Endourological Society, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, and Society of University Urologists
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.