HRQOL related to urinary diversion in Radical Cystectomy: a systematic review of recent literature

C. Linck Pazeto, W. Baccaglini, R. Tourinho-Barbosa, S. Glina, X. Cathelineau, R. Sanchez-Salas
{"title":"HRQOL related to urinary diversion in Radical Cystectomy: a systematic review of recent literature","authors":"C. Linck Pazeto, W. Baccaglini, R. Tourinho-Barbosa, S. Glina, X. Cathelineau, R. Sanchez-Salas","doi":"10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction: The health-related QoL is a patient-centered evaluation covering several aspects. This evaluation seems to be particularly important in patients submitted to radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion with ileal conduit (IC) or a neobladder (NB). Objective: Review all recent data comparing QoL outcomes after radical cystectomy with NB and IC diversions. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement in December 2018. All articles published from January 01, 2012 to December 31, 2018, were included. A study was considered relevant if it compared QoL outcomes using validated questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C30, FACT-G, FACT-BL, FACT-VCI, and BCI). Evidence Synthesis: In 11 included studies, a total of 1389 participants were accounted (730 NB and 659 IC cases). The studies were conducted in 8 different countries, two were prospective, and none was randomized. There were two studies favoring results with a neobladder, 3 with incontinent diversion and 6 with no differences. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 was the most used instrument (5 studies) followed by FACT VCI and BCI (3 studies each). Given the heterogeneity of data and lack of prospective studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusion: No superiority of one urinary diversion was characterized. It seems that the choice must be individualized with an extensive preoperative orientation of the patient and their relatives. That will probably influence how the patient accepts the new condition.","PeriodicalId":13674,"journal":{"name":"International Brazilian Journal of Urology : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology","volume":"35 1","pages":"1094 - 1104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Brazilian Journal of Urology : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: The health-related QoL is a patient-centered evaluation covering several aspects. This evaluation seems to be particularly important in patients submitted to radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion with ileal conduit (IC) or a neobladder (NB). Objective: Review all recent data comparing QoL outcomes after radical cystectomy with NB and IC diversions. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement in December 2018. All articles published from January 01, 2012 to December 31, 2018, were included. A study was considered relevant if it compared QoL outcomes using validated questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C30, FACT-G, FACT-BL, FACT-VCI, and BCI). Evidence Synthesis: In 11 included studies, a total of 1389 participants were accounted (730 NB and 659 IC cases). The studies were conducted in 8 different countries, two were prospective, and none was randomized. There were two studies favoring results with a neobladder, 3 with incontinent diversion and 6 with no differences. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 was the most used instrument (5 studies) followed by FACT VCI and BCI (3 studies each). Given the heterogeneity of data and lack of prospective studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusion: No superiority of one urinary diversion was characterized. It seems that the choice must be individualized with an extensive preoperative orientation of the patient and their relatives. That will probably influence how the patient accepts the new condition.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根治性膀胱切除术中与尿分流相关的HRQOL:近期文献的系统回顾
摘要:健康相关生活质量是一种以患者为中心的评价,涉及多个方面。这种评价对于接受根治性膀胱切除术(RC)和回肠导管(IC)或新膀胱(NB)的尿改道的患者尤其重要。目的:回顾最近所有比较根治性膀胱切除术与NB和IC转移后生活质量结果的数据。证据获取:根据2018年12月的系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明,对PubMed/Medline、Embase和Cochrane数据库进行了系统检索。所有发表于2012年1月1日至2018年12月31日的文章均被纳入。如果一项研究使用有效问卷(EORTC QLQ C30、FACT-G、FACT-BL、FACT-VCI和BCI)比较生活质量结果,则认为该研究具有相关性。证据综合:在11项纳入的研究中,共纳入1389名参与者(730例NB和659例IC)。这些研究在8个不同的国家进行,其中两个是前瞻性的,没有一个是随机的。有两项研究支持新膀胱的结果,3项研究支持失禁转移,6项研究没有差异。EORTC-QLQ-C30是使用最多的仪器(5项研究),其次是FACT VCI和BCI(各3项研究)。考虑到数据的异质性和缺乏前瞻性研究,未进行meta分析。结论:单次尿分流术无优越性。看来,选择必须个性化与广泛的术前方向的病人和他们的亲属。这可能会影响病人对新情况的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Advocating hormonal treatment to prevent adult infertility in patients diagnosed with congenital undescended testes REPLY TO THE AUTHORS: Re: One-day voiding diary in the evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in children Vesical imaging reporting and data system (VI-RADS) in bladder cancer diagnosis in review in this number of International Brazilian Journal of Urology The evolution of stress urinary incontinence treatment techniques of the last three decades Impact of artificial urinary sphincter erosion in the reimplantation of the device
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1