Khalilullah S.A., Tranggono U., Hendri A.Z., Danarto R.
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Division of Urology Oncology, Department of Surgery, Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Background: Most of the outcomes after radical cystectomy (RC) are directly associated with the type of urinary diversion. This study sets out to evaluate the outcomes of ileal conduit (IC) and transuretero-cutaneostomy (TUC) urinary diversion after RC. Methods: This retrospective study included 52 patients (IC, n = 30; TUC, n = 22) at Dr. Sardjito Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. The clinical outcomes were compared using Chi-squared tests and independent t tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the odds of developing related complications. Results: Demographically, both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, ASA score, staging, body mass index, and comorbidities. IC was associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications than TUC (56.7% vs. 27.3%; p = 0.035). Long-term postoperative complications stoma stenosis was more common in the TUC than IC (p = 0.010). Multivariate analysis showed TUC was a significant predictor for stoma stenotic with odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.62; p = 0.006). Meanwhile, metabolic change was found higher in IC (p = 0.047). No difference between the rate of required blood transfusion, postoperative ileus, re-operation, and anastomotic stricture in both groups. Operative time (p = 0.000) and length of stay (p = 0.002) were lower in patients who underwent TUC. The hospitalized cost was also lower in TUC ($ 2311.8 ± 1448 for IC vs. $ 1844.2 ± 948.8 for TUC; p = 0.005). Nonetheless, the follow-up cost was higher in the TUC but not statistically significant. Additionally, there was no difference between the overall satisfaction and diversion-related symptoms scores in both groups. The psychological score was better in IC groups. Conclusions: Both of these techniques can be an option in a urinary diversion after RC with various advantages and disadvantages. TUC provides reduced complication rates, operative time, shorter length of stay, and hospitalized costs, but IC may reduce postoperative stoma stenosis complications and better psychological function. © 2021, The Author(s).
Bladder cancer; Ileal conduit; Radical cystectomy; Transuretero-cutaneostomy; Urinary diversion
African Journal of Urology
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
Volume 27, Issue 1, Art No 59, Page – , Page Count
Journal Link: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85104136820&doi=10.1186%2fs12301-021-00163-9&partnerID=40&md5=4b4ab16457a05ead1c4381cb04e62e12
Type: All Open Access, Gold
Yai, F.A., Kassouf, W., Radical cystectomy is the treatment of choice for invasive bladder cancer (2009) Can UrolAssoc J, 39 (5), pp. 409-412; Kilciler, M., Bedir, S., Emedir, F., Comparison of ileal conduit and transureteroureterostomy with ureterocutaneostomy urinary diversion (2006) Urol Int, 77, p. 245; Guzzo, T.J., Vaughn, D.J., Management of metastatic and invasive bladder cancer (2016) Campbell-Walsh urology, p. 2223. , Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, (eds), 11, WB Saunders, Philadelphia; Longo, N., Imbimbo, C., Fusco, F., Complications and quality of life in elderly patients with several comorbidities undergoing cutaneous ureterostomy with single stoma or ileal conduit after radical cystectomy (2016) BJU Int, 118, p. 521. , COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28XhsV2qurnM; Bricker, E.M., Bladder substitution after pelvic eviscentration (1950) Surg Clin N Am, 30, pp. 1511-1521. , COI: 1:STN:280:DyaG3M%2FhtFOisQ%3D%3D; Kızılay, F., Şimşir, A., Cüreklibatır, I., Long-term outcomes of patients who underwent ureterocutaneostomy (2018) Bullet Uroonco, 17, pp. 54-58; Johnston, J.H., Temporary cutaneous ureterostomy in the management of advanced congenital urinary obstruction (1963) Arch Dis Child, 38, pp. 161-166. , COI: 1:STN:280:DyaF387kvFKnsg%3D%3D; Stein, R.S., Hohenfellner, M., Pahernik, S., Urinary diversion-approach and consequences (2012) Dtsch Arztebl Int, pp. 617-622; Witjes, J.A., Bruins, M., Cathomas, R., Muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (2019) EAU Guidelines; Rangarajan, K., Somani, B.K., Trends in quality of live reporting for radical cystectomy and urinary diversion over the last four decades: a systematic review of the literature (2019) Arab J Urol, 17 (3), pp. 181-194; Asgari, M.A., Safarinejad, M.R., Shakhssalim, N., Soleimani, M., Shahabi, A., Amini, E., Quality of life after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in men with an ileal conduit or continent urinary diversion: a comparative study (2013) Urol Ann, 5 (3), pp. 190-196. , COI: 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3sbptlarug%3D%3D; Miller, D.C., Taub, D.A., Dunn, R.L., The impact of co-morbid disease on cancer control and survival following radical cystectomy (2003) J Urol, 169, pp. 105-109; Mucciardi, G., Macchione, L., Galı, A., Quality of life and overall survival in high risk patients after radical cystectomy with a simple urinary derivation (2015) Cir Esp, 93, pp. 368-374; Dahl, D.M., Use of intestinal segments in urinary diversion (2016) Campbell-Walsh Urology, pp. 2281-2315. , Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, (eds), 11, WB Saunders, Philadelphia; Deliveliotis, C., Papatsoris, A., Chrisofos, M., Urinary diversion in high-risk elderly patients: modiied cutaneous ureterostomy or ileal conduit? (2005) Urol, 66 (2), pp. 299-304. , COI: 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2Mvjtlyitw%3D%3D; Siddiqui, K.M., Izawa, J.I., Ileal conduit: standard urinary diversion for elderly patients undergoing radical cystectomy (2016) World J Urol, 34, pp. 19-24; Wuethrich, P.Y., Vidal, A., Burkhard, F.C., There is a place for radical cystectomy and urinary diversion, including orthotopic bladder substitution, in patients aged 75 and older: results of a retrospective observational analysis from a high-volume center (2016) Urol Oncol, 34 (2), pp. 58.e19-27; Suzuki, K., Hinata, N., Inoue, T., Nakamura, I., Nakano, Y., Fujisawa, M., Comparison of the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of ileal conduit and cutaneous ureterostomy: a propensity score-matched analysis (2020) Urol Int, 104, pp. 48-54; Madersbacher, S., Schmidt, J., Eberle, J.M., Long-term outcome of ileal conduit diversion (2003) J Urol, 169, pp. 985-990; Studer, U.E., Burkhard, F.C., Schumacher, M., Twenty years experience with an ileal orthotopic low pressure bladder substitute—lessons to be learned (2006) J Urol, 176, pp. 161-166; Nieuwenhuijzen, J.A., de Vries, R.R., Bex, A., Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions (2008) Eur Urol, 53, p. 834; Philip, J., Manikandan, R., Venugopal, S., Desouza, J., Javlé, P.M., Orthotopic neobladder versus ileal conduit urinary diversion after cystectomy: a quality-of-life based comparison (2009) Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 91, pp. 565-569; Svare, J., Walter, S., Kvist Kristensen, J., Lund, F., Ileal conduit urinary diversion: early and late complications (1985) Eur Urol, 11, pp. 83-86. , COI: 1:STN:280:DyaL2M3jtVOruw%3D%3D
Indexed by Scopus