Comparison of functional and oncological outcomes between uterus-sparing radical cystectomy and standard radical cystectomy in females: A retrospective study

女性保留子宫根治性膀胱切除术与标准根治性膀胱切除术的功能和肿瘤学结果比较:一项回顾性研究

阅读:1

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of females who underwent uterus-sparing radical cystectomy (USRC) and standard radical cystectomy (SRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2009 and December 2020, 90 female patients who underwent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion were included in this study, comprising the USRC and SRC groups. Functional outcomes were assessed in 63 patients who only underwent radical cystectomy with neobladder formation. Questionnaire scores, clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) rate, and urinary continence rate were analyzed. Oncological outcomes were assessed in 86 patients, regardless of the urinary diversion type. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared. RESULTS: CIC rate was significantly lower in the USRC group than in the SRC group (14.7% vs. 48.0%; p=0.005). The continence rate was significantly higher in the USRC group than in the SRC group (85.3% vs. 40.0%; p=0.001). There were no significant differences in OS (p=0.890), CSS (p=0.700), or RFS (p=0.270) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, uterine preservation did not significantly increase the hazard ratio (HR) of OS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.18-2.11; p=0.450), CSS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40; p=0.990), or RFS (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.11; p=0.840). CONCLUSIONS: USRC resulted in higher continence rates and lower CIC rates than SRC without negatively affecting oncological outcomes. Hence, with thorough deliberation, USRC should be considered for females undergoing radical cystectomy.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。