Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the incidence, microbiological profile and risk factors associated with urinary tract infection after radical cystectomy

A. Artiles Medina, C. Mínguez Ojeda, J. Subiela, David López Curtis, Ana Domínguez Gutiérrez, Sandra Chamorro Tojeiro, Irene De La Parra Sánchez, M. J. Jiménez Cidre et al.

Urologic oncology, 2025

18,976 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the incidence, microbiological patterns and risk factors of UTIs following radical cystectomy (RC). The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024586612). We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published until December 2024. The selected records consisted of observational studies with at least two of the following main outcomes: UTI incidence, urosepsis rate, positive urine culture rate, isolated pathogens in urine culture and UTI-associated factors in the 90-day period after RC. Risk of bias was assessed for single-arm and nonrandomised comparative studies. We identified 1845 records and included 17 studies, comprising 18,976 patients who underwent RC. Overall, the pooled 90-day UTI incidence after RC was 21% (95% CI, 17%-25%). Among patients who develop UTI, pooled incidence of urosepsis was 25% (95% CI, 19%-32%). Pooled urine culture positivity reached 79% (95% CI, 74%-84%), with a 25% (95% CI, 17%-34%) and 11% (95% CI, 6%-18%) rate of polymicrobial and fungal infections, respectively. Pooled prevalence of common bacterial isolates obtained from urine cultures was 26% (95% CI, 18%-35%) for Escherichia coli, 26% (95% CI, 17%-35%) for Enterococcus spp. and 12% (95% CI, 8%-16%) for Klebsiella pneumoniae. Risk factors for 90-day UTI after RC included estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR 1.75, 95% CI, 1.44-2.12), orthotopic neobladder (RR 2.02, 95% CI, 1.17-3.48), postoperative hydronephrosis (RR 1.73, 95%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 18,976 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free