Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer

Although radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evalua...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2024-09, Vol.19 (9), p.e0305240
Hauptverfasser: Shin, Yoo Sub, Han, Kichang, Lee, Jongsoo, Han, Hyun Ho, Jang, Won Sik, Kim, Gyoung Min, Heo, Ji Eun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 9
container_start_page e0305240
container_title PloS one
container_volume 19
creator Shin, Yoo Sub
Han, Kichang
Lee, Jongsoo
Han, Hyun Ho
Jang, Won Sik
Kim, Gyoung Min
Heo, Ji Eun
description Although radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evaluated the outcome of LE in patients receiving RC and analyzed factors associated with outcomes. This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LE after RC for bladder cancer between August 2017 and June 2023. The data was assessed for analysis at January 2024. The patients were divided into a clinical success group and a clinical failure group. Clinical failure was defined as the following: 1) those who required drainage catheter placement >7 days after LE, 2) those who needed re-intervention before catheter removal, and 3) those who experienced adverse events associated with LE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of LE. We analyzed 45 patients who underwent LE after RC. Twenty-eight (62.2%) patients were identified as clinically successful. Four patients required re-embolization, but none required more than two sessions of intervention. Three patients experienced lymphatic complications after LE. In multivariable analysis, maximal daily drainage volume of >1,000 mL/day (odds ratio [OR] = 4.729, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.018-21.974, p = 0.047) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 4.571, 95% CI: 1.128-18.510, p = 0.033) were factors associated with LE outcome. Our results suggest LE as a potentially effective procedure for controlling post-operative lymphatic leaks after RC, with few minor side effects. Patients exceeding a daily drainage of 1,000mL/day or with a medical history of DM have a higher risk for re-intervention and clinical failure after LE.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0305240
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3109503631</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A809806146</galeid><sourcerecordid>A809806146</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b221c48700c91fc18aca7770300d6a8e2883a9153f4ad78877c3594f3457f8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJwyGLHTuycUFXxUWmlSnxdrVlnspvixKntVIRfj5dNV7uoB-SDR55n3rHHb5I8p2RBmaDvru3oejCLwfa4IIwUOScPklNasTwrc8IeHsQnyRPvrwkpmCzLx8kJqxgtS8JPk245dcMGQqtT7FbWtL9jbPu0sS5FcGZKB-tDZgd0MXGLqdnzBuEnrDGFJqBLHdStBpPqyQfUwXbTX42VgbqOaQ29Rvc0edSA8fhs3s-S7x8_fLv4nC2vPl1enC8zXZAyZHKV51RzKQjRFW00laBBCBFfSeoSJOZSMqhowRoOtZBSCM2KijeMF6KRwM6SlzvdwViv5kl5xSipCsJKRiPxfibGVYe1xj44MGpwbQduUhZadZzp241a21tFKc-pEEVUeDMrOHszog-qa71GY6BHO-6a8ZwQziL66h_0_ivN1BoMqrZvbGyst6LqXJJKkpLyMlKLe6i4auxaHb3QtPH8qODtUUFkAv4Kaxi9V5dfv_w_e_XjmH19wG4QTNh4a8atffwxyHegdtZ7h81-ypSorZXvpqG2VlazlWPZi8Mf2hfdeZf9AeJz7xA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3109503631</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Shin, Yoo Sub ; Han, Kichang ; Lee, Jongsoo ; Han, Hyun Ho ; Jang, Won Sik ; Kim, Gyoung Min ; Heo, Ji Eun</creator><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yoo Sub ; Han, Kichang ; Lee, Jongsoo ; Han, Hyun Ho ; Jang, Won Sik ; Kim, Gyoung Min ; Heo, Ji Eun</creatorcontrib><description>Although radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evaluated the outcome of LE in patients receiving RC and analyzed factors associated with outcomes. This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LE after RC for bladder cancer between August 2017 and June 2023. The data was assessed for analysis at January 2024. The patients were divided into a clinical success group and a clinical failure group. Clinical failure was defined as the following: 1) those who required drainage catheter placement &gt;7 days after LE, 2) those who needed re-intervention before catheter removal, and 3) those who experienced adverse events associated with LE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of LE. We analyzed 45 patients who underwent LE after RC. Twenty-eight (62.2%) patients were identified as clinically successful. Four patients required re-embolization, but none required more than two sessions of intervention. Three patients experienced lymphatic complications after LE. In multivariable analysis, maximal daily drainage volume of &gt;1,000 mL/day (odds ratio [OR] = 4.729, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.018-21.974, p = 0.047) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 4.571, 95% CI: 1.128-18.510, p = 0.033) were factors associated with LE outcome. Our results suggest LE as a potentially effective procedure for controlling post-operative lymphatic leaks after RC, with few minor side effects. Patients exceeding a daily drainage of 1,000mL/day or with a medical history of DM have a higher risk for re-intervention and clinical failure after LE.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305240</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39316604</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bladder ; Bladder cancer ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Catheters ; Complications and side effects ; Cystectomy - adverse effects ; Diabetes ; Diabetes mellitus ; Diagnosis ; Dissection ; Drainage - methods ; Embolization ; Embolization, Therapeutic - methods ; Engineering and Technology ; Ethanol ; Failure ; Female ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Leakage ; Lymph Node Excision - adverse effects ; Lymph nodes ; Lymphatic system ; Male ; Medical instruments ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Oncology, Experimental ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Regression analysis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Sclerotherapy ; Side effects ; Statistical analysis ; Success ; Surgical drains ; Therapeutic embolization ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - surgery ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - therapy ; Urological surgery ; Wound drainage</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-09, Vol.19 (9), p.e0305240</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Shin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2024 Shin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 Shin et al 2024 Shin et al</rights><rights>2024 Shin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b221c48700c91fc18aca7770300d6a8e2883a9153f4ad78877c3594f3457f8a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4184-8468 ; 0009-0005-5075-1843</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421775/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421775/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39316604$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yoo Sub</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Kichang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jongsoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Hyun Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, Won Sik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Gyoung Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heo, Ji Eun</creatorcontrib><title>Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Although radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evaluated the outcome of LE in patients receiving RC and analyzed factors associated with outcomes. This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LE after RC for bladder cancer between August 2017 and June 2023. The data was assessed for analysis at January 2024. The patients were divided into a clinical success group and a clinical failure group. Clinical failure was defined as the following: 1) those who required drainage catheter placement &gt;7 days after LE, 2) those who needed re-intervention before catheter removal, and 3) those who experienced adverse events associated with LE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of LE. We analyzed 45 patients who underwent LE after RC. Twenty-eight (62.2%) patients were identified as clinically successful. Four patients required re-embolization, but none required more than two sessions of intervention. Three patients experienced lymphatic complications after LE. In multivariable analysis, maximal daily drainage volume of &gt;1,000 mL/day (odds ratio [OR] = 4.729, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.018-21.974, p = 0.047) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 4.571, 95% CI: 1.128-18.510, p = 0.033) were factors associated with LE outcome. Our results suggest LE as a potentially effective procedure for controlling post-operative lymphatic leaks after RC, with few minor side effects. Patients exceeding a daily drainage of 1,000mL/day or with a medical history of DM have a higher risk for re-intervention and clinical failure after LE.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Bladder cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Complications and side effects</subject><subject>Cystectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Drainage - methods</subject><subject>Embolization</subject><subject>Embolization, Therapeutic - methods</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Leakage</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - adverse effects</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical instruments</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Oncology, Experimental</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Sclerotherapy</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Surgical drains</subject><subject>Therapeutic embolization</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><subject>Wound drainage</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJwyGLHTuycUFXxUWmlSnxdrVlnspvixKntVIRfj5dNV7uoB-SDR55n3rHHb5I8p2RBmaDvru3oejCLwfa4IIwUOScPklNasTwrc8IeHsQnyRPvrwkpmCzLx8kJqxgtS8JPk245dcMGQqtT7FbWtL9jbPu0sS5FcGZKB-tDZgd0MXGLqdnzBuEnrDGFJqBLHdStBpPqyQfUwXbTX42VgbqOaQ29Rvc0edSA8fhs3s-S7x8_fLv4nC2vPl1enC8zXZAyZHKV51RzKQjRFW00laBBCBFfSeoSJOZSMqhowRoOtZBSCM2KijeMF6KRwM6SlzvdwViv5kl5xSipCsJKRiPxfibGVYe1xj44MGpwbQduUhZadZzp241a21tFKc-pEEVUeDMrOHszog-qa71GY6BHO-6a8ZwQziL66h_0_ivN1BoMqrZvbGyst6LqXJJKkpLyMlKLe6i4auxaHb3QtPH8qODtUUFkAv4Kaxi9V5dfv_w_e_XjmH19wG4QTNh4a8atffwxyHegdtZ7h81-ypSorZXvpqG2VlazlWPZi8Mf2hfdeZf9AeJz7xA</recordid><startdate>20240924</startdate><enddate>20240924</enddate><creator>Shin, Yoo Sub</creator><creator>Han, Kichang</creator><creator>Lee, Jongsoo</creator><creator>Han, Hyun Ho</creator><creator>Jang, Won Sik</creator><creator>Kim, Gyoung Min</creator><creator>Heo, Ji Eun</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-8468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5075-1843</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240924</creationdate><title>Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer</title><author>Shin, Yoo Sub ; Han, Kichang ; Lee, Jongsoo ; Han, Hyun Ho ; Jang, Won Sik ; Kim, Gyoung Min ; Heo, Ji Eun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-8b221c48700c91fc18aca7770300d6a8e2883a9153f4ad78877c3594f3457f8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Bladder cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Complications and side effects</topic><topic>Cystectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Drainage - methods</topic><topic>Embolization</topic><topic>Embolization, Therapeutic - methods</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Leakage</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - adverse effects</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical instruments</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Oncology, Experimental</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Sclerotherapy</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Surgical drains</topic><topic>Therapeutic embolization</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><topic>Wound drainage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yoo Sub</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Kichang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jongsoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Hyun Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, Won Sik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Gyoung Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heo, Ji Eun</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shin, Yoo Sub</au><au>Han, Kichang</au><au>Lee, Jongsoo</au><au>Han, Hyun Ho</au><au>Jang, Won Sik</au><au>Kim, Gyoung Min</au><au>Heo, Ji Eun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-09-24</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e0305240</spage><pages>e0305240-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Although radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evaluated the outcome of LE in patients receiving RC and analyzed factors associated with outcomes. This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LE after RC for bladder cancer between August 2017 and June 2023. The data was assessed for analysis at January 2024. The patients were divided into a clinical success group and a clinical failure group. Clinical failure was defined as the following: 1) those who required drainage catheter placement &gt;7 days after LE, 2) those who needed re-intervention before catheter removal, and 3) those who experienced adverse events associated with LE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of LE. We analyzed 45 patients who underwent LE after RC. Twenty-eight (62.2%) patients were identified as clinically successful. Four patients required re-embolization, but none required more than two sessions of intervention. Three patients experienced lymphatic complications after LE. In multivariable analysis, maximal daily drainage volume of &gt;1,000 mL/day (odds ratio [OR] = 4.729, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.018-21.974, p = 0.047) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 4.571, 95% CI: 1.128-18.510, p = 0.033) were factors associated with LE outcome. Our results suggest LE as a potentially effective procedure for controlling post-operative lymphatic leaks after RC, with few minor side effects. Patients exceeding a daily drainage of 1,000mL/day or with a medical history of DM have a higher risk for re-intervention and clinical failure after LE.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>39316604</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0305240</doi><tpages>e0305240</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-8468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5075-1843</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2024-09, Vol.19 (9), p.e0305240
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_3109503631
source Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Aged
Biology and Life Sciences
Bladder
Bladder cancer
Cancer
Cancer therapies
Care and treatment
Catheters
Complications and side effects
Cystectomy - adverse effects
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
Diagnosis
Dissection
Drainage - methods
Embolization
Embolization, Therapeutic - methods
Engineering and Technology
Ethanol
Failure
Female
Gastrointestinal surgery
Health aspects
Humans
Leakage
Lymph Node Excision - adverse effects
Lymph nodes
Lymphatic system
Male
Medical instruments
Medicine and Health Sciences
Middle Aged
Mortality
Oncology, Experimental
Patient outcomes
Patients
Physical Sciences
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Regression analysis
Research and Analysis Methods
Retrospective Studies
Risk factors
Sclerotherapy
Side effects
Statistical analysis
Success
Surgical drains
Therapeutic embolization
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - surgery
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - therapy
Urological surgery
Wound drainage
title Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T06%3A49%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lymphatic%20embolization%20for%20early%20post-operative%20lymphatic%20leakage%20after%20radical%20cystectomy%20for%20bladder%20cancer&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Shin,%20Yoo%20Sub&rft.date=2024-09-24&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e0305240&rft.pages=e0305240-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0305240&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA809806146%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3109503631&rft_id=info:pmid/39316604&rft_galeid=A809806146&rfr_iscdi=true