4.2 Article

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315995

Keywords

bladder cancer; complications; laparoscopy; radical cystectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The results showed comparable overall survival rates, but laparoscopic cystectomy had less blood loss and faster recovery.
The goal of the study was to compare laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy in treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the Department of Urology and Oncological Urology PUM in Szczecin. A total of 78 patients in the study group underwent laparoscopic cystectomy between 2016-2018, and 81 patients from the control group had open cystectomy between 2014-2016. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, stage, and concomitant diseases. The 3 year overall survival was comparable in both groups (37.7% for laparoscopy and 44.4% for open, p = 0.64). There was no difference in positive surgical margin rate. Lymph node yield during cystectomy was higher in open cystectomy (14 vs. 11.5, p = 0.001). Post-operative blood loss and transfusion rates were lower in laparoscopic cystectomy. Decrease in hemoglobin level was lower in laparoscopy (0.9 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Intraoperative transfusion rate was 11.8% in laparoscopy vs. 34.8% in open cystectomy (p = 0.002). Operation time, duration of hospitalisation, and time to full oral alimentation were comparable in both groups. Patients with BMI > 30 kg/m(2) and those with pT3-T4 cancer in the laparoscopy group had less septic complications post-operatively. Patients with ASA score >= 3 from the laparoscopy group had fewer reoperations due to ileus. Laparoscopic cystectomy is less invasive and offers similar oncological outcomes to the open method. Patients benefit from less tissue trauma, less blood loss, and faster recovery. The presented results, as well as other publications, should encourage a wider use of this procedure in everyday urological practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available