Introduction: Studies comparing refluxing versus non-refluxing ureteric implantation in continent cutaneous urinary diversion (CCUD) are scarce and often characterized by heterogeneous study populations. This work therefore aimed at comparing both techniques regarding long-term outcomes in a propensity-scored approach. Methods: We identified n = 19 patients, totaling n = 38 renal units (RU), who underwent CCUD surgery at our hospital out of a pool of 120 patients. Of these 38 RU, 27 RU were implanted via refluxing ureteric implantation utilizing various procedures due to special intraoperative circumstances (short ureters, damage due to radiation). In terms of preoperative renal function, a comorbidity index (Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index [ACCI]), and gender, we compared them to n = 38 patients with a total of 76 RU with non-refluxing ureteric implantation in all RU (1:2 matching). The mean follow-up was 56 (IQR: 23–112) months. Results: Long-term renal function was comparable in CCUD patients receiving refluxing versus non-refluxing ureteric implantation (estimated glomerular filtration rate: 63.11 mL/min vs. 71.7 mL/min, p = 0.22) with an average decline of 17.4 mL/min and 13.69 mL/min during the follow-up period, respectively. Also, the rate of new-onset chronic kidney disease (CKD) (both 15%, p = 1), the need for alkalizing medication, or the number of pyelonephritis episodes did not significantly differ between the groups. In Cox regression analysis, ACCI was the single most predictive parameter for the development of new-onset CKD (HR: 1.71 [1.10–2.66], p = 0.0167). None of the RU in the refluxing group needed revisional surgery concerning the ureterointestinal anastomosis, whereas 7 RU of the non-refluxing group did. Conclusions: Our study confirms that refluxing ureteric implantation in CCUDs is a valid and safe procedure regarding long-term renal, metabolic and functional outcomes. Our data also suggest that patients should be counseled according to their comorbidities regarding long-term renal function.

Journal Section:
Research Article
Keywords:
Urinary diversion, Ureteric implantation, Continent cutaneous urinary diversion, Ileocecal pouch
1.
Chou
R
,
Selph
SS
,
Buckley
DI
,
Gustafson
KS
,
Griffin
JC
,
Grusing
SE
, et al.
Treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review
.
Cancer
.
2016
;
122
(
6
):
842
–
51
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
2.
Kalogirou
C
,
Breshnev
S
,
Krebs
M
,
Koneval
L
,
Sokolakis
I
,
Kübler
H
, et al.
Cognitive status and functional dexterity as outcome predictors following urinary diversion: a combined retrospective and prospective observational study
.
Urol Int
.
2018
;
102
(
2
):
224
–
32
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
3.
Spencer
ES
,
Lyons
MD
,
Pruthi
RS
.
Patient selection and counseling for urinary diversion
.
Urol Clin North Am
.
2018
;
45
(
1
):
1
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
4.
ML
Kwan
,
MC
Leo
,
KN
Danforth
,
S
Weinmann
,
VS
Lee
,
JR
Munneke
, et al.
Factors that influence selectionof urinary diversion among bladder cancer patients in 3 community-based integrated health care systems
.
Urology
.
2019
:
125
:
222
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
5.
Hautmann
RE
,
Egghart
G
,
Frohneberg
D
,
Miller
K
.
The ileal neobladder
.
J Urol
.
1988
;
139
(
1
):
39
–
42
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
6.
Thüroff
JW
,
Alken
P
,
Riedmiller
H
,
Engelmann
U
,
Jacobi
GH
,
Hohenfellner
R
.
The Mainz pouch (mixed augmentation ileum and cecum) for bladder augmentation and continent diversion
.
J Urol
.
1986
;
136
(
1
):
17
–
26
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
7.
Goodwin
WE
,
Scardino
PT
.
Ureterosigmoidostomy
.
J Urol
.
1977
;
118
(
1 Pt 2
):
169
–
74
.
Google Scholar
PubMed
 
8.
Fisch
M
,
Hohenfellner
R
.
Sigma-rectum pouch (Mainz pouch II)
.
BJU Int
.
2007
;
99
(
4
):
945
–
60
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
9.
Abol-Enein
H
,
El-Baz
M
,
Ghoneim
MA
.
Optimization of uretero-intestinal anastomosis in urinary diversion: an experimental study in dogs. I. Evaluation of the Le Duc technique
.
Urol Res
.
1993
;
21
(
2
):
125
–
9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
10.
Thüroff
JW
,
Alken
P
,
Riedmiller
H
,
Jacobi
GH
,
Hohenfellner
R
.
100 cases of Mainz pouch: continuing experience and evolution
.
J Urol
.
1988
;
140
(
2
):
283
–
8
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
11.
Terai
A
,
Arai
Y
,
Okada
Y
,
Yoshida
O
.
Urinary bacteriology of continent urinary reservoirs and calculus formation
.
Int J Urol
.
1994
;
1
(
4
):
332
–
6
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
12.
von Knobloch
R
,
Seybold
M
,
Fischer
HP
,
Kibele
M
,
Samad
WA
.
Modification of the Indiana pouch ileo-caecal cutaneous continent urinary diversion: tubular ileal afferent limb for ureteral anastomosis has low stricture rate and allows ileal ureter replacement
.
Urol Int
.
2022
;
106
(
2
):
180
–
5
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
13.
Hohenfellner
R
,
Black
P
,
Leissner
J
,
Allhoff
EP
.
Refluxing ureterointestinal anastomosis for continent cutaneous urinary diversion
.
J Urol
.
2002
;
168
(
3
):
1013
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
14.
Jin
X-D
,
Roethlisberger
S
,
Burkhard
FC
,
Birkhaeuser
F
,
Thoeny
HC
,
Studer
UE
.
Long-term renal function after urinary diversion by ileal conduit or orthotopic ileal bladder substitution
.
Eur Urol
.
2012
;
61
(
3
):
491
–
7
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
15.
Makino
K
,
Nakagawa
T
,
Kanatani
A
,
Kawai
T
,
Taguchi
S
,
Otsuka
M
, et al.
Biphasic decline in renal function after radical cystectomy with urinary diversion
.
Int J Clin Oncol
.
2017
;
22
(
2
):
359
–
65
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2024
You do not currently have access to this content.