Evidence Hub

Comparison of postoperative complications and quality of life between patients undergoing continent versus non-continent urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies

Angeles MA, Mallet E, Rouanet P, Cabarrou B, Méeus P, Lambaudie E, Foucher F, Narducci F et al.

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2020

148 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration and its reconstructive techniques have been associated with high postoperative morbidity and a negative impact on patient quality of life. The aim of our study was to compare postoperative complications and quality of life in patients undergoing continent compared with non-continent urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS: We designed a multicenter study of patients from 10 centers who underwent an anterior or total pelvic exenteration with urinary reconstruction for histologically confirmed persistent or recurrent gynecologic malignancy after previous treatment with radiotherapy. From January 2005 to September 2008, we included patients retrospectively, and from September 2008 to May 2009, patients were included prospectively which allowed collection of quality of life data. Demographic, surgical, and follow-up data were analyzed. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Quality of life was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30 (V.3.0) and EORTC-QLQ-OV28 quality of life questionnaires. We compared patients who underwent a continent urinary diversion with those who underwent a non-continent reconstruction.

RESULTS: We included 148 patients, 92 retrospectively and 56 prospectively. Among them, 77.4% had recurrent disease and 22.6% persistent disease after the primary treatment. In 70 patients, a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 148 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