M A Cerruto1, C D'Elia2, S Siracusano3, X Gedeshi4, A Mariotto5, M Iafrate6, M Niero7, C Lonardi8, P Bassi9, E Belgrano10, C Imbimbo11, M Racioppi12, R Talamini13, S Ciciliato14, L Toffoli15, M Rizzo16, F Visalli17, P Verze18, W Artibani19. 1. University of Verona, Urology Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: mariaangela.cerruto@univr.it. 2. University of Verona, Urology Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: karolinedelia@gmail.com. 3. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: siracus@units.it. 4. University of Verona, Urology Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: xhoagedeschi@gmail.com. 5. University of Verona, Urology Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: arianna.mariotto@gmail.com. 6. University of Padua, Urology Department, Padua, Italy. Electronic address: massimo.iafrate@unipd.it. 7. University of Verona, TESIS Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: mauro.niero@univr.it. 8. University of Verona, TESIS Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: cristina.lonardi@univr.it. 9. Catholic University Policlinico Gemelli, Urology Department, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: bassipf@rm.unicatt.it. 10. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: e.belgrano@fmc.units.it. 11. University of Naples, Urology Department, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: ciro.imbimbo@unina.it. 12. Catholic University Policlinico Gemelli, Urology Department, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: marco.racioppi@rm.unicatt.it. 13. IRCCS-CRO, Unit of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Aviano, Italy. Electronic address: talaminir@gmail.com. 14. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: stefanociciliato@gmail.com. 15. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: lauratoffoli1@yahoo.it. 16. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: mik.rizzo@gmail.com. 17. Trieste University, Urology Department, Trieste, Italy. Electronic address: visa83@virgilio.it. 18. University of Naples, Urology Department, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: pverze@gmail.com. 19. University of Verona, Urology Department, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: walter.artibani@univr.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current literature on the impact of different urinary diversions on patients' health related quality of life (HR-QoL) showed a marginally better quality of life scores of orthotopic neobladder (ONB) compared to ileal conduit (IC). The aim of this study was to update the review of all relevant published studies on the comparison between ONB and IC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were identified by searching multiple literature databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed Data were synthesized using meta-analytic methods conformed to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The current meta-analysis was based on 18 papers that reported a HR-QoL comparison between IC and ONB using at least a validate questionnaire. Pooled effect sizes of combined QoL outcomes for IC versus ONB showed a slight, but not significant, better QoL in patients with ONB (Hedges' g = 0.150; p = 0.066). Patients with ileal ONB showed a significant better QoL than those with IC (Hedges' g = 0.278; p = 0.000); in case series with more than 65% males, ONB group showed a slight significant better QoL than IC (Hedges' g = 0.190; p = 0.024). Pooled effects sizes of all EORTC-QLQ-C30 aspects showed a significant better QoL in patients with ONB (Hedges' g = 0.400; p = 0.0000). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of not-randomized comparative studies on the impact of different types of urinary diversions on HR-QoL showed demonstrated a significant advantage of ileal ONB compared to IC in terms of HR-QoL.
PURPOSE: The current literature on the impact of different urinary diversions on patients' health related quality of life (HR-QoL) showed a marginally better quality of life scores of orthotopic neobladder (ONB) compared to ileal conduit (IC). The aim of this study was to update the review of all relevant published studies on the comparison between ONB and IC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were identified by searching multiple literature databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed Data were synthesized using meta-analytic methods conformed to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The current meta-analysis was based on 18 papers that reported a HR-QoL comparison between IC and ONB using at least a validate questionnaire. Pooled effect sizes of combined QoL outcomes for IC versus ONB showed a slight, but not significant, better QoL in patients with ONB (Hedges' g = 0.150; p = 0.066). Patients with ileal ONB showed a significant better QoL than those with IC (Hedges' g = 0.278; p = 0.000); in case series with more than 65% males, ONB group showed a slight significant better QoL than IC (Hedges' g = 0.190; p = 0.024). Pooled effects sizes of all EORTC-QLQ-C30 aspects showed a significant better QoL in patients with ONB (Hedges' g = 0.400; p = 0.0000). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of not-randomized comparative studies on the impact of different types of urinary diversions on HR-QoL showed demonstrated a significant advantage of ileal ONB compared to IC in terms of HR-QoL.
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Tobias Grimm; Alexander Buchner; Markus Grabbert; Friedrich Jokisch; Birte-Swantje Schneevoigt; Maria Apfelbeck; Gerald Schulz; Christian G Stief; Alexander Karl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Matthew B Clements; Thomas M Atkinson; Guido M Dalbagni; Yuelin Li; Andrew J Vickers; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Daniel S Sjoberg; Amy L Tin; Bruce D Rapkin; Bernard H Bochner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: E Chantalat; C Vaysse; M C Delchier; B Bordier; X Game; P Chaynes; E Cavaignac; M Roumiguié Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Ameeta L Nayak; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallée; Chris Morash; Duane Hickling; Ranjeeta Mallick; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: E Pons-Tostivint; M Roumiguié; V Tostivint; G Verhoest; B Cabarrou; J Gas; P Coloby; J Zgheib; M Thoulouzan; M Soulié; X Gamé; J B Beauval Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: N E Mohamed; F Gilbert; C T Lee; J Sfakianos; C Knauer; R Mehrazin; H Badr; D Wittmann; T Downs; D Berry; B Given; P Wiklund; G Steineck Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2016-04-27