medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2022, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2022; 82 (4)

Radical cystectomy postsurgical complications at 30 days: related risk factors and description of the surgical APGAR score for prediction

González-Sánchez BC, Garza-Gangemi AM; Martínez-Silva LR, Martínez-Delgado GH, Castillo-Burelo L, Gebhardt-Cruz ED, Castillejos MRA

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page:
PDF size: 286.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Bladder cancer represents the seventh most common cancer with highly variable morbidity and mortality due to detection, treatment and follow-up strategies, with radical cystectomy (RC) being the treatment that offers the best oncological control. A morbidity rate between 30-93% has been reported at 30 days, and mortality greater than 8%. This variability is due to the scarcity of standardized reports using scales such as Clavien-Dindo (CD). Due to the little evidence of publications on complications associated with RC, we decided to make a standardized report of these, using the CD scale of the RCs performed in our hospital, with the goal of finding out the incidence and real severity of these.
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was made of a prospectively maintained database of RCs performed in our center between 1994 and 2019. All patients over 18 years of age who underwent RC during the study period were included, and all patients with incomplete documentation of the immediate 30 day-postoperative were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used for data presentation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine the data distribution. An inferential mean comparison analysis was performed using the Student’s t-test for variables with normal distribution, and non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney U-test) for those with non-normal distribution.
Results: The mean age of the study population was 61.16 years (SD 10.1). Patients without major complications had a BMI 2.45 kg/m2 lower compared to patients with major complications (95% CI -4.7 to -0.18). Bleeding and surgical time, as well as type of derivation, were not significantly associated with major complications.
Study limitations: It was a retrospective study, so the SAS could not be calculated for the entire population. Also, it was a small cohort of patients in a tertiary care center with a restricted number of hospital beds, which considerably reduces the statistical power of the study to find low-frequency events (mortality). Extending the follow-up to more than 30 days could modify the incidence of complications.
Originality: Our series is the first to use a standardized system (Clavien-Dindo scale) to report postoperative complications in patients undergoing RC in Mexico.
Conclusions: RC continues to be one of the surgeries with the highest morbidity. The use of standardized scales for reporting complications associated with RC would allow us to establish prevention strategies and establish homogeneous surveillance criteria with other specialties.


REFERENCES

  1. International Agency for Research on Cancer.Cancer Today. Estimated number of new cases in 2020, worlwide, both sexes, all ages. 2021.2022.World Health Organization; 2020. Available from:https://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-table

  2. Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Guidi M, Vagnoni V,Zukerman Z, Pultrone C, et al. Perioperativecomplications and mortality after radicalcystectomy when using a standardizedreporting methodology. Clin GenitourinCancer. 2013;11(2):189–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2012.12.003

  3. Chang SS, Bochner BH, Chou R, DreicerR, Kamat AM, Lerner SP, et al. Treatmentof Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive BladderCancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline.J Urol. 2017;198(3):552–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086}

  4. Olasveengen TM, Semeraro F, Ristagno G,Castren M, Handley A, Kuzovlev A, et al.European Resuscitation Council Guidelines2021: Basic Life Support. Resuscitation.2021 Apr;161:98–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.009

  5. Patel HD, Ball MW, Cohen JE, Kates M,Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME. Morbidity ofUrologic Surgical Procedures: An Analysisof Rates, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.Urology. 2015;85(3):552–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.034

  6. Hirobe M, Tanaka T, Shindo T, Ichihara K, HottaH, Takahashi A, et al. Complications within 90days after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer:results of a multicenter prospective study inJapan. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018;23(4):734–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1245-z

  7. Moschini M, Simone G, Stenzl A, Gill IS,Catto J. Critical Review of Outcomes fromRadical Cystectomy: Can Complicationsfrom Radical Cystectomy Be Reduced bySurgical Volume and Robotic Surgery? EurUrol Focus. 2016;2(1):19–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.03.001

  8. Yuh BE, Nazmy M, Ruel NH, Jankowski JT,Menchaca AR, Torrey RR, et al. Standardizedanalysis of frequency and severity ofcomplications after robot-assisted radicalcystectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):806–13.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.007

  9. Canales R R, Iturriaga V C, Canales S O,Guamán O R, Michael L P, Susaeta S R, etal. Cistectomía radical por cáncer vesical enun hospital docente-asistencial: análisis deresultados perioperatorios. Revista chilena decirugía. 2014;66(4):351–8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-40262014000400010

  10. Álvarez Ardura M, Llorente Abarca C, StuderUE. Manejo perioperatorio y resultadosen pacientes con neovejiga ileal ortotópica.Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2008;32(3):297–306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(08)73834-8

  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A.Classification of surgical complications: anew proposal with evaluation in a cohort of6336 patients and results of a survey. AnnSurg. 2004;240(2):205–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

  12. Martínez-Cornelio A, Hernández-Toriz N,Quintero-Becerra J, Flores-López D, Moreno-Palacios J, Vázquez-Martínez E. Trece añosde experiencia en el manejo de cáncer vesicalcon neovejiga ortotópica de Studer. Cir Cir.2009;77(6):443–50.

  13. González Ávila G, Rodríguez Ovalle H,Rojas Barrera JA. Morbilidad y mortalidaden conducto ileal y su relación con nutriciónparenteral total postoperatoria. NutriciónHospitalaria. 2006;21(4):511–6.

  14. Acosta-Garduño J, Sánchez-Puente JC, Aragón-Tovar AR, Torres-Medina E, Vilchis-CárdenasMA, Urbina-Bernal LC, et al. Morbimortalidadasociada a la cistectomía radical; experiencia enla UMAE N° 25 del IMSS. Rev Mex Urol.2010;70(4):224–7.

  15. Djaladat H, Bruins HM, Miranda G, Cai J,Skinner EC, Daneshmand S. The association ofpreoperative serum albumin level and AmericanSociety of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score onearly complications and survival of patientsundergoing radical cystectomy for urothelialbladder cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):887–93.doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12240

  16. Arumainayagam N, McGrath J, JeffersonKP, Gillatt DA. Introduction of an enhancedrecovery protocol for radical cystectomy. BJUInternational. 2008;101(6):698–701. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07319.x

  17. Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC, Taub D, Dunn RL,Khuri SF, Henderson WG, et al. Identifying riskfactors for potentially avoidable complicationsfollowing radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2005;174(4Pt 1):1231–7; discussion 1237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000173923.35338.99

  18. Masago T, Morizane S, Honda M, Isoyama T,Koumi T, Ono K, et al. Estimation of mortalityand morbidity risk of radical cystectomy usingPOSSUM and the Portsmouth predictor equation.Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(3):270–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.636

  19. Gawande AA, Kwaan MR, Regenbogen SE,Lipsitz SA, Zinner MJ. An Apgar score forsurgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(2):201–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.11.011

  20. Baltazar GA, Darnauer T, Akella K, KanitschS, Shafey A, Chendrasekhar A. SurgicalApgar Score Predicts Postoperative Lengthof Stay Better Than American Society ofAnesthesiologists Classification. The InternetJournal of Surgery. 2014;32(1). doi: http://ispub.com/doi/10.5580/IJS.22197

  21. Baumeister P, Galioto D, Moschini M,Lonati C, Zamboni S, Afferi L, et al. Singlestaff cystectomy in a low-volume center:Oncological outcomes and complications.Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2021May 11;15(11). doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7171

  22. Arora S, Keeley J, Patel A, Eleswarapu SV,Bronkema C, Alanee S, et al. Defining a‘High Volume’ Radical Cystectomy Hospital:Where Do We Draw the Line? Eur UrolFocus. 2020;6(5):975–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.02.001

  23. Waingankar N, Mallin K, Smaldone M,Egleston BL, Higgins A, Winchester DP, et al.Assessing the relative influence of hospital andsurgeon volume on short-term mortality afterradical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2017;120(2):239–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13804

  24. Vetterlein MW, Meyer CP, Leyh-BannurahS-R, Mayr R, Gierth M, Fritsche H-M, et al.Effect of Hospital and Surgeon Case Volumeon Perioperative Quality of Care and ShorttermOutcomes After Radical Cystectomy forMuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Results Froma European Tertiary Care Center Cohort. ClinGenitourin Cancer. 2017;15(5):e809–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.04.021

  25. Grande P, Campi R, Rouprêt M. Relationshipof surgeon/hospital volume with outcomesin uro-oncology surgery. Current Opinion inUrology. 2018;28(3):251–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000490

  26. Azhar RA, Bochner B, Catto J, Goh AC,Kelly J, Patel HD, et al. Enhanced Recoveryafter Urological Surgery: A ContemporarySystematic Review of Outcomes, KeyElements, and Research Needs. EuropeanUrology. 2016;70(1):176–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.051

  27. Tyson MD, Chang SS. Enhanced RecoveryPathways Versus Standard Care AfterCystectomy: A Meta-analysis of the Effect onPerioperative Outcomes. European Urology.2016;70(6):995–1003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.031




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com