Analysis of the efficacy of a single subumbilical stoma for bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy.
Bladder cancer
Complications
Efficacy
Radical cystectomy
Ureterostomy with a single stoma
Journal
European journal of medical research
ISSN: 2047-783X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Med Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9517857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2023
07 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
10
11
2022
accepted:
27
07
2023
medline:
9
8
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radical cystectomy and urinary diversion are the standard surgical treatments for patients with muscle-invasive or high-risk, or recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although this approach significantly prolongs patient survival, it can lead to postoperative complications. This study aims to compare the efficacy and complications of bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy with a single subumbilical stoma to those of cutaneous ureterostomy with two stomas and an ileal conduit as a means of urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. The findings of this study will provide valuable information for healthcare providers in selecting the appropriate urinary diversion method for their patients. The clinical data for 108 patients who received bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy with a single subumbilical stoma (ureterostomy with a single stoma group), cutaneous ureterostomy with two stomas (ureterostomy with two stomas group), or an ileal conduit (ileal conduit group) after radical cystectomy were retrospectively analysed. The operative time, pathological stage, survival status, perioperative complication rate, rate of successful first extubation, rehospitalization rate at 6 months after surgery,ostomy-related medical costs,and postoperative quality of life were compared between the three groups of patients. A significant difference in the operative time was found between the three groups (P = 0.001). No significant differences in pathological stage, survival status, perioperative complication rate, rehospitalization rate at 6 months after surgery, or bladder cancer index (BCI) score were identified among the three groups. The difference in the successful first extubation rate between the three groups of patients was significant (P = 0.001). Significant differences in ostomy-related medical costs were observed among the three groups of patients (P = 0.006). A single subumbilical stoma for bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy may result in shorter surgery time, increased success rates for initial catheter removal, and lower medical expenses. However, to confirm these findings, further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radical cystectomy and urinary diversion are the standard surgical treatments for patients with muscle-invasive or high-risk, or recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although this approach significantly prolongs patient survival, it can lead to postoperative complications. This study aims to compare the efficacy and complications of bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy with a single subumbilical stoma to those of cutaneous ureterostomy with two stomas and an ileal conduit as a means of urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. The findings of this study will provide valuable information for healthcare providers in selecting the appropriate urinary diversion method for their patients.
METHODS
METHODS
The clinical data for 108 patients who received bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy with a single subumbilical stoma (ureterostomy with a single stoma group), cutaneous ureterostomy with two stomas (ureterostomy with two stomas group), or an ileal conduit (ileal conduit group) after radical cystectomy were retrospectively analysed. The operative time, pathological stage, survival status, perioperative complication rate, rate of successful first extubation, rehospitalization rate at 6 months after surgery,ostomy-related medical costs,and postoperative quality of life were compared between the three groups of patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A significant difference in the operative time was found between the three groups (P = 0.001). No significant differences in pathological stage, survival status, perioperative complication rate, rehospitalization rate at 6 months after surgery, or bladder cancer index (BCI) score were identified among the three groups. The difference in the successful first extubation rate between the three groups of patients was significant (P = 0.001). Significant differences in ostomy-related medical costs were observed among the three groups of patients (P = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A single subumbilical stoma for bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy may result in shorter surgery time, increased success rates for initial catheter removal, and lower medical expenses. However, to confirm these findings, further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37550747
doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01250-z
pii: 10.1186/s40001-023-01250-z
pmc: PMC10405402
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273Subventions
Organisme : Key Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province under Grant Agreement
ID : BE2020654
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Dec;9(6):2997-3006
pubmed: 33457272
J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):886-9; discussion 889-90
pubmed: 16469572
J Urol. 2010 May;183(5):1764-9
pubmed: 20299056
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Jan 13;21(1):49
pubmed: 33441098
Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;38(2):39.e11-39.e19
pubmed: 31761612
Int Braz J Urol. 2022 Jan-Feb;48(1):18-30
pubmed: 33861058
Korean J Urol. 2013 Mar;54(3):168-71
pubmed: 23526413
JAMA. 2020 Nov 17;324(19):1980-1991
pubmed: 33201207
Urology. 2005 Aug;66(2):299-304
pubmed: 16040096
BJU Int. 2014 Jan;113(1):11-23
pubmed: 24330062
World J Urol. 2022 Jul;40(7):1715-1721
pubmed: 35486177
Urol Int. 2006;77(3):245-50
pubmed: 17033213
Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):164-74
pubmed: 18675501
Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Dec;9(6):2920-2937
pubmed: 33457265
Prog Urol. 2018 Apr;28(5):241-250
pubmed: 29571902
BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):521-6
pubmed: 26935245
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Sep;70(5):404-423
pubmed: 32767764
Turk J Urol. 2018 Sep;44(5):399-405
pubmed: 29799401
Int Urol Nephrol. 2019 Jun;51(6):959-967
pubmed: 30982146
Urol Clin North Am. 1991 Nov;18(4):641-8
pubmed: 1949397
J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1939-43
pubmed: 21944116
Eur Urol. 2008 Oct;54(4):825-32
pubmed: 18502026
Cancer Commun (Lond). 2019 Apr 18;39(1):19
pubmed: 30999948
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Feb;30(2):279
pubmed: 31792087
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Urology. 2022 Nov;169:269-271
pubmed: 35907483
Cancer. 2006 Aug 15;107(4):729-37
pubmed: 16826589