The nomenclature of groin dissection for melanoma – Time to simplify

SummaryIntroductionA wide variety of terms are used to describe different extents of groin dissection for stage 3 melanoma which may result in confusion and reduce effectiveness of research. We aim to evaluate the published terminology.MethodsA PubMed review was conducted using the terms ‘melanoma’ plus ‘inguinal’; ‘groin'; ‘pelvic’; ‘ilioinguinal’ dissection. 63 papers were included from 1956 to March 2015. A review of anatomy and coding was also conducted.ResultsInguinal dissection was described using 8 terms from 56 papers with 7 papers using multiple terms for the same procedure. ’Superficial dissection’ was the most common term despite inguinal-nodal tissue being separated into superficial and deep layers anatomically. ICD10PCS and OPSC code for ‘inguinal’ with no anatomical definition, CPT codes for ‘inguinofemoral/superficial’.Combination inguino-pelvic dissection was described using 11 terms from 51 papers with 15 papers using multiple terms for the same procedure. ‘Ilioinguinal’ and ‘Deep’ were the most common despite most pelvic dissections including obturator nodes. ICD10PCS and OPSC code for ‘pelvic’ with no anatomical definition and CPT codes for ‘superficial plus pelvic’.ConclusionMany different terms are used to describe the same procedures, often within the same article. The lack of clarity can confuse readers, hinder comparative research and jeopardise patient care. Imprecise documentation of anatomical definition limits surgical outcome reporting and can impede planning for revision surgery. Standardisation is necessary and groin dissection should be defined by anatomical boundaries e.g. ‘superficial’ and ‘deep’ inguinal; ‘pelvic’; ‘inguino-pelvic’ with clear documentation of extent.