Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ World Journal of Uro...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
World Journal of Urology
Article . 2024 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Other literature type . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: PubMed Central
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Gutenberg Open Science
Article . 2024
License: CC BY
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Radical cystectomy in patients aged < 80 years versus ≥ 80 years: analysis of preoperative geriatric assessment scores in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality

Authors: Gregor Duwe; Isabel Wagner; Katarzyna E. Banasiewicz; Lisa Johanna Frey; Nikita Dhruva Fischer; Johann Bierlein; Niklas Rölz; +10 Authors

Radical cystectomy in patients aged < 80 years versus ≥ 80 years: analysis of preoperative geriatric assessment scores in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Pre-operative assessment of surgical risk is essential for patient counselling in the elderly patient population. Our purpose was to compare validated geriatric assessment scores (GAS) in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients ≥ 80 years. Methods Overall, eight preoperative GAS were assessed for each patient who received RC from 2016 to 2021. Postoperative morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) of surgical complications. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to determine prediction of 30-d morbidity and 90-d mortality in patients ≥ 80 years. Results In total, 424 patients were analysed (77.4% male) with median age of 71 years (IQR: 68.82;70.69), of which 67 (15.8%) were ≥ 80 years. Patients age ≥ 80 years showed more 30-d CDC grade ≥ IIIb (41.07% vs. 27.74% compared to < 80 years, p < .001) and worse 90-d mortality (26.87% vs. 4.76%, p < .001). In patients ≥ 80 years, morbidity was predicted by simplified Frailty Index (sFI) ≥ 2 (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.27–3.34, p = .004), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥ 2 (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.18–6.54, p = .019) and severe Adult Comorbidity Evaluation (ACE)-27 score (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.13–3.79, p = .019), while 90-d mortality was predicted by CDC grade ≥ IIIb (OR: 22.91, 95% CI: 8.74–60.09, p < .001) and ECOG ≥ 2 (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.05–7.86, p = .04). Conclusion Even in a high-volume center of RC, 90-d mortality is significantly higher in patients age ≥ 80. Our results suggest in patient age ≥ 80, sFI ≥ 2, ECOG performance status ≥ 2 and severe ACE-27 score as clinical cut-off value to evaluate alternative bladder-sparing concepts.

Country
Germany
Keywords

Male, Aged, 80 and over, Research, 610 Medizin, Age Factors, Cystectomy, Risk Assessment, Postoperative Complications, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, 610 Medical sciences, Preoperative Period, Humans, Female, Female [MeSH] ; Age Factors [MeSH] ; Postoperative complications ; Aged, 80 and over [MeSH] ; Morbidity ; Comorbidities ; Aged [MeSH] ; Geriatric assessment ; Postoperative Complications/mortality [MeSH] ; Humans [MeSH] ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology [MeSH] ; Predictive Value of Tests [MeSH] ; Retrospective Studies [MeSH] ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/mortality [MeSH] ; Geriatric Assessment/methods [MeSH] ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/surgery [MeSH] ; Cystectomy/methods [MeSH] ; Mortality ; Male [MeSH] ; Research ; Preoperative Period [MeSH] ; Outcome improvement ; Risk Assessment/methods [MeSH] ; Radical cystectomy, Geriatric Assessment, Aged, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    6
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
6
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Green
hybrid
Related to Research communities