000			05121nam a22006857a 4500
008			240807s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2474-9842
024			_a7710789 [pii]
024			_aPMC11236483 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38987232
245			_aComplications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area: worldwide expert consensus.
251			_aBjs Open. 8(4), 2024 Jul 02.
252			_aBJS open. 8(4), 2024 Jul 02.
253			_aBJS open
260			_c2024
260			_fFY2025
260			_p2024 Jul 02
265			_sppublish
265			_tMEDLINE
266			_d2024-08-07
266			_z2024/07/10 23:02
520			_aBACKGROUND: Inguinal lymph node dissection plays an important role in the management of melanoma, penile and vulval cancer. Inguinal lymph node dissection is associated with various intraoperative and postoperative complications with significant heterogeneity in classification and reporting. This lack of standardization challenges efforts to study and report inguinal lymph node dissection outcomes. The aim of this study was to devise a system to standardize the classification and reporting of inguinal lymph node dissection perioperative complications by creating a worldwide collaborative, the complications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area (CALI) group.
520			_aCONCLUSION: The complications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area classification system has been developed as a tool to standardize the assessment and reporting of complications during inguinal lymph node dissection for the treatment of melanoma, vulval and penile cancer. Copyright © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.
520			_aMETHODS: A modified 3-round Delphi consensus approach surveyed a worldwide group of experts in inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma, penile and vulval cancer. The group of experts included general surgeons, urologists and oncologists (gynaecological and surgical). The survey assessed expert agreement on inguinal lymph node dissection perioperative complications. Panel interrater agreement and consistency were assessed as the overall percentage agreement and Cronbach's alpha.
520			_aRESULTS: Forty-seven experienced consultants were enrolled: 26 (55.3%) urologists, 11 (23.4%) surgical oncologists, 6 (12.8%) general surgeons and 4 (8.5%) gynaecology oncologists. Based on their expertise, 31 (66%), 10 (21.3%) and 22 (46.8%) of the participants treat penile cancer, vulval cancer and melanoma using inguinal lymph node dissection respectively; 89.4% (42 of 47) agreed with the definitions and inclusion as part of the inguinal lymph node dissection intraoperative complication group, while 93.6% (44 of 47) agreed that postoperative complications should be subclassified into five macrocategories. Unanimous agreement (100%, 37 of 37) was achieved with the final standardized classification system for reporting inguinal lymph node dissection complications in melanoma, vulval cancer and penile cancer.
546			_aEnglish
650			_a*Consensus
650			_a*Delphi Technique
650			_a*Inguinal Canal
650			_a*Lymph Node Excision
650			_a*Melanoma
650			_a*Penile Neoplasms
650			_a*Postoperative Complications
650			_a*Vulvar Neoplasms
650			_aFemale
650			_aHumans
650			_aInguinal Canal/su [Surgery]
650			_aLymph Node Excision/ae [Adverse Effects]
650			_aLymph Node Excision/mt [Methods]
650			_aMale
650			_aMelanoma/pa [Pathology]
650			_aMelanoma/su [Surgery]
650			_aPenile Neoplasms/pa [Pathology]
650			_aPenile Neoplasms/su [Surgery]
650			_aPostoperative Complications/ep [Epidemiology]
650			_aPostoperative Complications/et [Etiology]
650			_aSurveys and Questionnaires
650			_aVulvar Neoplasms/pa [Pathology]
650			_aVulvar Neoplasms/su [Surgery]
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Franklin Square Medical Center
656			_aSurgery
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aSayegh, Aref S _bMFSMC
790			_aSotelo R, Sayegh AS, Medina LG, Perez LC, La Riva A, Eppler MB, Gaona J, Tobias-Machado M, Spiess PE, Pettaway CA, Lima Pompeo AC, Lima Mattos PA, Wilson TG, Villoldo GM, Chung E, Samaniego A, Ornellas AA, Pinheiro V, Brazao ES Jr, Subira-Rios D, Koifman L, Zequi SC, Pontillo Z HM, Rodrigues Calixto JR, Campos Silva R, Smithers BM, Garzon S, Haase O, Sommariva A, Fruscio R, Martins F, de Oliveira PS, Levi Sandri GB, Clementi M, Astigueta J, Metwally IH, Bharathan R, Jindal T, Nakamura Y, Abdel Mageed H, Jeevarajan S, Rodriguez Lay R, Garcia-Perdomo HA, Rodriguez Gonzalez O, Ghodoussipour S, Gill I, Cacciamani GE
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae056 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae056
858			_ySayegh, Aref S _uhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9320-2987 _zhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9320-2987
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14542 _d14542