Evidence Hub

C.F.C.-type ureterosigmoidostomy. Results

Castiñeiras Fernández J, Camacho González JE, Sánchez-Ferragut C, Ortiz Gámiz A, García-Cabanillas MJ, Osman Aga G, Juárez Soto A, Soto Delgado M

Actas urologicas espanolas, 1999

25 participants

Abstract

This paper presents the results obtained with a C.F.C. type ureterosygmoidostomy technique described by us. A total of 25 patients aged between 52 and 74 years (mean age, 65 years), 23 (23/25) male and 2 (2/25) female were evaluated. 24 of the total 25 patients had infiltrant neoplasia of the bladder (pT2: 8; pT3a: 12; pT3b: 4) which was graded as moderately differentiated (G2: 10) or undifferentiated (G3: 14). The remaining patient, a female, had tuberculous microbladder. Male patients underwent radical cystoprostatectomy (23/25); while in two females traditional cystectomy was performed (2/25). Patients with neoplasia of the bladder (24/25) were performed bilateral lymphadenectomy prior to radical surgery. All 25 patients were performed C.F.C. type ureterosygmoidostomy (Actas Urol Esp 20: 324, 1996). Follow-up of patients was carried out over a mean period of 27 months (July 1994-October 1997). The complications reported were 4 cases of ureterointestinal stricture and one stercoral fistula. The strictures were resolved with endoscopic techniques and the fistula through discharge colostomy. Death (6/25) occurred as a result of the tumour progression, and in no case was related to the surgical technique. All patients showed daytime continence (100%), and 22/25 were also continent during the nighttime (88%): there were occasional leaks in 5/25 (20%). No metabolic disorders were seen in any of the patients. (All patients were given drug therapy to prevent metabolic acidosis).

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 25 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