Evidence Hub

A Randomized Comparison of the Studer Pouch vs. the T-Pouch Orthotopic Neobladder Urinary Diversion in Bladder Cancer Patients

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2018

529 participants

Abstract

This is a prospective, randomized study of two types of continent ileal neobladder construction in patients undergoing cystectomy for primary bladder cancer. Patients will be randomly assigned to have either a T-pouch or a Studer pouch constructed at the time of their surgery. They will be followed long-term to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two types of diversion. The investigators' hypothesis is that the inclusion of an antireflux mechanism in the T-pouch will result in significantly fewer episodes of symptomatic urinary tract infection, and will have a lower incidence of upper tract dilation and loss of renal function over the long term.

Conditions: Bladder Cancer.

Primary outcome: The primary endpoint is the long-term outcome (> 3 years) as it pertains to renal function, anatomy of the upper urinary tracts, and the requirement for medical or surgical intervention (ie for symptomatic urinary tract infections)..

Enrollment: 529 participants.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 529 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free