4.7 Review

Evidence-Based Analysis of the Critical Steps of Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216845

关键词

radical cystectomy; urologic oncology; bladder cancer; surgical technique; surgical outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed and reviewed the critical steps of open radical cystectomy and developed a concise guide. Through evidence-based assessment, valuable information for optimizing surgical techniques and patient outcomes is provided.
Radical cystectomy (RC) is an integral part of the management of patients with advanced-stage bladder cancer. This major oncologic operation is prone to complications resulting in morbidity and mortality. We analyzed the critical steps of open RC, performed an evidence-based review of these steps, and discussed our experience and approach. We conducted a literature review of the open RC technique, identified the critical steps that consistently appeared across different sources, and organized these steps into a framework. PubMed was queried with the critical steps as keywords for relevant articles published from 1 January 2013 to 1 August 2023. We utilized this query to conduct a systematic review of the literature using the outcomes of overall survival and 90-day complication rate. We developed the Summary for the 10 Critical Operative Steps of Radical Cystectomy, a concise guide to the approach to open RC. When available, an evidence-based analysis of each critical step was performed. We also included additional components of cystectomy optimization such as pre-habilitation in the preoperative phase, standard versus extended lymphadenectomy, the vaginal-sparing approach to female radical cystectomy, patient-reported outcomes following urinary diversion, the use of a mesh for stoma formation, and the use of the ERAS protocol for postoperative care. An evidence-based assessment of RC may help provide valuable information to optimize surgical techniques and patient outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据