Quality of life and secondary outcomes for open versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a double-blinded, randomised feasibility trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Purpose: This study aims to examine quality of life (QoL) before and after radical cystectomy (RC) and compare robot-assisted laparoscopy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) to open radical cystectomy (ORC). Methods: This study is a predefined secondary analysis of a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised feasibility trial. Fifty patients were randomly assigned to iRARC with ileal conduit (n = 25) or ORC with ileal conduit (n = 25). Patients were followed 90 days postoperatively. The primary outcome was patient-reported QoL using the EORTC Cancer-30 and muscle-invasive bladder cancer BLM-30 QoL questionnaires before and after RC. Differences between randomisation arms as well as changes over time were evaluated. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90 day complication rates, 90 day readmission rates, and 90 day days-alive-and-out-of-hospital and their relationship to QoL. Results: All patients underwent the allocated treatment. We found no difference in QoL, complication rates, readmission rates, and days-alive-and-out-of-hospital between randomisation arms. An overall improvement in QoL was found in the following domains: future perspectives, emotional functioning, and social functioning. Sexual functioning worsened postoperatively. There was no association between having experienced a major complication or lengthy hospitalisation and worse postoperative QoL. Conclusion: The QoL does not appear to depend on surgical technique. Apart from sexual functioning, patients report stable or improved QoL within the first 90 postoperative days.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftWorld Journal of Urology
Vol/bind40
Udgave nummer7
Sider (fra-til)1669-1677
Antal sider9
ISSN0724-4983
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2022

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
This study was supported by the Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet and The Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital. The Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital did not have any role in the design and the conduct of this study.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

ID: 315475989