Radical cystectomy in female patients: Does the urinary diversion type affect postoperative complications?

M Mazyar Zahir F Farshad Sheybaee Moghaddam (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA) S Seyedeh Sanam Ladi Seyedian (Department of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA) G Gus Miranda (Department of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA) J Jie Cai (National and Local Joint Engineering Research Center of MPTES in High Energy and Safety LIBs, Engineering Research Center of MTEES (Ministry of Education), Research Center of BMET (Guangdong Province), and Key Lab. of ETESPG(GHEI), School of Chemistry) M Monish Aron (USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA) M Mihir Desai (USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA) I Inderbir Gill (USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA) A Anne K. Schuckman (University of Southern California Institute of Urology Los Angeles California USA) S Siamak Daneshmand (Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center) H Hooman Djaladat (Department of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Laton, CA)

Abstract

752 Background: Data is limited on the possible impact of urinary diversion (UD) type on post cystectomy complications, particularly in women. This study aims to investigate this issue and identify predictors of post-cystectomy complications in female population. Methods: We utilized our prospectively maintained IRB-approved radical cystectomy (RC) database (#HS-01B014) to identify all female patients who underwent RC between 2003 and 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their UD type: ileal conduit (IC), neobladder (NB) and continence cutaneous diversion (CCD). Demographics, baseline characteristics and postoperative complications were compared across the three groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of complications at 90 days postoperatively. Results: A total of 531 female patients were included: 263 (49.5%) with IC, 206 (38.8%) with NB, and 62 (11.7%) with CCD. The table outlines the patients' demographics and perioperative characteristics. The overall 30-day complication rates were comparable across groups: 54.9% for NB, 51.6% for CCD, and 61.6% for IC (p = .195). Similarly, 90-day complication rates were also comparable (NB = 65.5%, CCD = 64.5%, IC = 70.3%; p = .456). 90-day complication subgroups including cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, hematologic, infectious, and neurologic were comparable between different UDs. However, genitourinary complications were significantly higher in CCD (32.3%) compared to IC (13.3%) and NB (14.6%) (p < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with CCD had increased odds of 90-day genitourinary complications compared to NB (OR = 2.83 [95%CI: 1.38, 5.72], p= .001), while preoperative eGFR was protective (OR = 0.987 [95%CI; 0.977, 0.997], p = .010). Conclusions: Our results suggested that UD type has minimal influence on cumulative 30- and 90- day post-cystectomy complications. However, CCD was associated with an increased odds of 90-day genitourinary complications. Demographics and perioperative characteristics of patients stratified by urinary diversion type. Patient characteristics Neobladder(N = 206) Continent Cutaneous Diversion (N =62) Ileal conduit(N = 263) p Age (yrs.) 64.4 ± 9.8 64.2 ± 10.5 73.5 ± 10.4 <.001 Charleson Comorbidity Index 0 80 (38.8%) 25 (40.3%) 41 (15.6%) <.001 1 63 (30.6%) 11 (17.8%) 60 (22.8%) >=2 63 (30.6%) 26 (41.9%) 162 (61.6%) Preoperative eGFR (mL/min) 73.2 ± 24.7 72.3 ± 32.0 63.8 ± 29.0 <.001 Surgical Approach Open 196 (95.1%) 60 (96.8%) 177 (67.3%) <.001 Robotic assisted 10 (4.9%) 2 (3.2%) 86 (32.7%) Pathological Staging OC (< (y)pT2; pN0) 166 (80.6%) 44 (71.0%) 168 (63.9%) .002 EV (> (y)pT2; pN0) 26 (12.6%) 9 (14.5%) 62 (23.6%) LN+ (pN+) 14 (6.8%) 9 (14.5%) 33 (12.5%)

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 752-752
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (11)

M

Mazyar Zahir

F

Farshad Sheybaee Moghaddam

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

S

Seyedeh Sanam Ladi Seyedian

Department of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

G

Gus Miranda

Department of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA

J

Jie Cai

National and Local Joint Engineering Research Center of MPTES in High Energy and Safety LIBs, Engineering Research Center of MTEES (Ministry of Education), Research Center of BMET (Guangdong Province), and Key Lab. of ETESPG(GHEI), School of Chemistry

M

Monish Aron

USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA

M

Mihir Desai

USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA

I

Inderbir Gill

USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA

A

Anne K. Schuckman

University of Southern California Institute of Urology Los Angeles California USA

S

Siamak Daneshmand

Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center

H

Hooman Djaladat

Department of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Laton, CA