期刊文献+

高龄膀胱癌患者全膀胱切除术的并发症及生存分析 被引量:3

Complications and Survival Analysis of Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly
原文传递
导出
摘要 [目的]探讨高龄膀胱癌患者接受全膀胱切除术的临床病理特点,围手术期并发症和疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2012年1月至2016年12月间年龄≥75岁,接受全膀胱切除术的高龄患者,收集患者的临床病理信息,统计学分析患者围手术期并发症及生存情况。[结果]57例年龄≥75岁,在我院接受全膀胱切除术的高龄患者,尿流改道方式分别为回肠膀胱术13例和输尿管皮肤造口术44例,无一例患者在围手术期间死亡。22例(38.6%)患者出现围手术期并发症。常见的并发症包括感染、肠梗阻、肾盂输尿管积水等。无复发生存时间(RFS)为11.4个月,中位总生存时间为15.8个月。回肠膀胱术和输尿管皮肤造口术两种尿流改道术式的RFS无统计学差异。[结论]肌层浸润或高危复发的高龄膀胱癌患者,全膀胱切除术并发症发生率可以接受。在合适的患者身上,尿流改道应尽可能选用回肠膀胱术。 [ Objective ] To discover the clinic-pathological features,perioperative complications and effect of elderly people who underwent radical cystectomy. [Methods] A retrospective review was undertaken of patients who underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer from January 2012 to December 2016. All the patients were 75 years old or older. Data of clinic-pathological features,perioperative complication and survival were collected. [Resultsl Fifty-seven patients were reviewed,among whom 13 patients underwent the Bricker procedure while 44 of them un- derwent cutaneous ureterostomy. None of the patients died during the perioperative period. 22 pa- tients (38.6%) showed complications like infection,bowel obstruction,hydronephrosis after the surgery. The median RFS of the patients was 11.4 months,while the median OS was 15.8 months. There was no significant difference of RFS between the Brieker procedure and cutaneous ureterostomy. [ Conclusion ] For elderly with high-risk recurrent bladder or MIBC,radical eystecto- my is a option and the Bricker procedure is preferred for suitable patients.
出处 《肿瘤学杂志》 CAS 2017年第7期574-577,共4页 Journal of Chinese Oncology
关键词 膀胱癌 老年人 手术 并发症 生存 bladder cancer elderly surgery complication survival
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献19

  • 1Amain P, Evi C. The dilemma of cystectomy in old-old and oldest- old patients [ J ]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2014, 11 ( 12 ) : 1863 - 1870.
  • 2Stenzl A, Cowan NC, De Santis M, et al. Treatment of muscle-in- vasive and metastatic bladder cancer: update of the EAU guide- lines[J]. Eur Urol, 2011, 59(6) : 1009 -1018.
  • 3Zeng S, Zhang Z, Yu X, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy for elderly patients over 75-year-old: a single center comparative analysis [ J ]. PLoS One, 2014, 9 (6) : e98950.
  • 4Comploj E, West J, Mian M, et al. Comparison of complications from radical cystectomy between old-old versus oldest-old patients [J]. Urollnt, 2015,94(1): 25 -30.
  • 5Shabsigh A, Korets R, Vora KC, et al. Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology[ J]. Eur Urol, 2009, 55 ( 1 ) : 164 - 176.
  • 6Schrag D, Mitra N, Xu F, et al. Cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: patterns and outcomes of care in the Medicare population[J]. Urology, 2005, 65(6) : 1118 - 1125.
  • 7Donat SM, Siegrist T, Cronin A, et al. Radical cysteetomy in oc- togenarians-does morbidity outweigh the potential survival bene- fits? [J].JUrol, 2010, 183(6): 2171 -2177.
  • 8Novotny V, Zastrow S, Koch R, et al. Radical cystectomy in pa- tients over 70 years of age : impact of comorbidity on perioperative morbidity and mortality[J]. World J Urol, 2012, 30(6) : 769 - 776.
  • 9Bostrom PJ, Kossi J, Laato M, et al. Risk factors for mortality and morbidity related to radical cystectomy[ Jl. BJU Int, 2009, 103 (2) : 191 -196.
  • 10Hautmann RE, Petrieoni RC, Volkmer BG. Lessons learned from 1000 neobladders: the 90-day complication rate [ J ]. J Urol, 2010, 184(3) : 990 -994.

共引文献19

同被引文献35

引证文献3

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部