4.4 Article

Body Image and Bladder Cancer Specific Quality of Life in Patients With Ileal Conduit and Neobladder Urinary Diversions

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 3, Pages 671-675

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.087

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH through the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [5T32DK007782-08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE Patients undergoing radical cystectomy with neobladder for bladder cancer are hypothesized to tolerate worse urinary function than ileal conduit patients because of improved body image. The purpose of this study was to compare body image and quality of life between the 2 diversion types after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients who underwent radical cystectomy at the University of Michigan from November 1999 onwards and completed follow-up between July 2007 and August 2008 were eligible for the study. Patients who had cystoscopy for bladder cancer were enrolled as a reference group. Urinary, bowel, and sexual outcomes were assessed using the Bladder Cancer Index, and body image was evaluated using the EORTC Body Image Scale. Cross-sectional analysis at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 years after treatment was performed. RESULTS A total of 139 neobladder, 85 conduit, and 112 cystoscopy patients were studied. After cystectomy, both conduit and neobladder groups had worse body image scores that improved over time, although the neobladder group did not return to baseline. Age was associated with score but gender was not. Urinary function was better in conduit patients but urinary bother was the same in both diversion types. CONCLUSIONS Radical cystectomy has a significant impact on body image that improves slowly over time. No difference in body image scores between ileal conduit and neobladder patients exists after surgery. Factors other than just body image are likely involved in the patient's acceptance of worse urinary function associated with a neobladder. UROLOGY 76: 671-676, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available