RESUMEN
With increasing life expectancy there is also an increased need for the management of older (≥â¯80 years) patients with the diagnosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Radical cystectomy with urinary diversion is the state of the art treatment (with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as long as the patient is fit enough). Choosing the best urinary diversion with respect to morbidity compared to functionality and quality of life remains a challenge in these patients. Physical age alone is not decisive for making a decision. A thorough preoperative assessment of medical features, physical and cognitive impairments is more important. Older patients are generally provided with an ileal conduit as an incontinent urinary diversion, as the intervention involves reduced operating times and complexity compared to continent urinary diversions; however, in the case of good health status with an adequate life expectancy and sufficient compliance, continent diversions may be considered even in aged candidates. In the case of multimorbid patients with a high perioperative risk, ureterostomy with permanent ureteric stents is an important alternative. Most importantly, a thorough preoperative counselling enables patients to reach an informed decision.
Asunto(s)
Cistectomía , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria , Derivación Urinaria , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/cirugía , Derivación Urinaria/métodosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Iatrogenic ureteral strictures (US) after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis represent a significant healthcare concern. However, high-quality evidence on the risk factors associated with US is currently lacking. We aimed to develop a consensus statement addressing the definition, risk factors, and follow-up management of iatrogenic US after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis. METHODS: Utilizing a modified Delphi method, a steering committee developed survey statements based on a systematic literature review. Then, a two-round online survey was submitted to 25 experts, offering voting options to assess agreement levels. A consensus panel meeting was held for unresolved statements. The predetermined consensus threshold was set at 70%. RESULTS: The steering committee formulated 73 statements. In the initial survey, consensus was reached on 56 (77%) statements. Following in-depth discussions and refinement of 17 (23%) statements in a consensus meeting, the second survey achieved consensus on 63 (86%) statements. This process underscored agreement on pivotal factors influencing US in endoscopic urolithiasis treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive list of categorized risk factors for US following endoscopic urolithiasis treatments. The objectives include enhancing uniformity in research, minimizing redundancy in outcome assessments, and effectively addressing risk factors associated with US. These findings are crucial for designing future clinical trials and guiding endoscopic surgeons in mitigating the risk of US.
Asunto(s)
Técnica Delphi , Obstrucción Ureteral , Ureteroscopía , Urolitiasis , Humanos , Urolitiasis/cirugía , Factores de Riesgo , Ureteroscopía/efectos adversos , Obstrucción Ureteral/cirugía , Obstrucción Ureteral/etiología , Constricción Patológica , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Enfermedad Iatrogénica , Internacionalidad , ConsensoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design). RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.