Comparing Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for the Treatment of cN2 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis

Abstract

Background: Inguinal lymph node (LN) dissection (iLND) is mandatory in cN2 penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC). Open iLND (OIL) is often omitted due to the high rate of complications. A minimally invasive approach may reduce morbidity; however, evidence supporting its role to treat bulky nodes is limited. This study aimed to present the outcomes of the largest European single-center series of robot-assisted iLND (RAIL) for the treatment of cN2 PSCC and to compare the surgical and survival outcomes of this approach with the standard of care. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on men with cT1-4N2M0 PSCC undergone either OIL or RAIL at our institution from January 2014 onwards. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Results: Overall, 47 patients were included; 38 (81%) underwent OIL. Median age was 59 years, with 23 men (48%) presenting with a ≥4 Charlson comorbidity index. Operation time was significantly longer in the robotic cohort (212 min vs. 145 min; p < 0.001), while the length of stay (p = 0.09) and time to inguinal drainage removal (p = 0.08) were not. Estimated blood loss favored the robotic approach (60 mL vs. 300 mL; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications rates were comparable in the two groups (25% vs. 47%; p = 0.17): four major complications were observed overall, and these were all in the OIL cohort. Median LN yield was comparable between the two groups (18 vs. 25; p = 0.05). Final pathology reports showed no significant differences in tumor stage distribution between the cohorts (p = 0.54). Kaplan–Meier analysis did not reveal any significant differences in RFS probabilities between the two treatment groups (Log Rank = 0.99). Conclusions: RAIL demonstrated comparable perioperative and oncologic outcomes to OIL for cN2 PSCC, with the benefit of reduced estimated blood loss. RAIL is a feasible option for cases where a minimally invasive approach is preferred, offering comparable perioperative safety and oncological outcomes.