Open cystectomy is still alive and well: Outcomes from a single-centre 6-year review. (May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dosis, Alexios; Dhliwayo, Blessing; Jones, Patrick; Kovacevic, Iva; Yee, Jonathan; Ali, Omer; Javle, Pradip; Blades, Rosie
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical urology. Volume 12:Number 3(2019)
• Page Start: 239
• Page End: 245
• Publication Date: 2019-05
• Subjects: Bladder cancer -- laparoscopic -- open -- cystectomy -- oncology; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/2051415818759366
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2051-4158

Abstract

Objectives: To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical cystectomy in a single-centre setting. Materials and methods: This study was a retrospective cohort (level 2b evidence) non-randomised review of 228 radical cystectomies that were performed between January 2010 and February 2016. Primary outcome measures were operative time, complications, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS v21.0. Quantitative values were compared with Student's t -test; categorical variables with the chi-square test. Statistical significance was considered a result of an alpha value less than 0.05. A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was also conducted. Results: Intraoperative blood loss was lower in laparoscopic surgery (855±673 vs. 716±570 mL, P =0.15), which had a significant impact on transfusion rates ( P =0.02). Operative times were lower in open surgery (339±52.9 vs. 353.1±67.1 minutes, P =0.10), while hospital stay was lower in the laparoscopic group (14.2±11.2 vs. 16.0±13.6 days, P =0.28). Five-year survival rates were superior for patients who underwent an open procedure but were not statistically significant ( P =0.10). Conclusion: This is, so far, the largest cohort to compare laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy. The laparoscopic approach can reduce the need for transfusion; however, there was no statistically significant difference in complication rates, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay or intraoperative blood loss, survival and margin positivity. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.