Evidence Hub

Is orthotopic bladder replacement the new gold standard? Evidence from a systematic review

Nabi G, Yong SM, Ong E, McPherson G, Grant A, N'Dow J

The Journal of urology, 2005

32,795 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this systematic review we determined whether the outcome of orthotopic bladder replacement is superior to that of continent and incontinent urinary diversion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to January 2003. A total of 3,370 abstracts were reviewed, including all types of studies from prospective, randomized, controlled studies to small, retrospective series. All relevant articles with at least 10 patients and a mean followup of at least 1 year were retrieved. There were no language restrictions. NonEnglish articles were translated. Comparisons were made between the major surgery types, including ileal conduit, continent diversion, bladder reconstruction and bladder replacement. All studies were scored using a predetermined quality assessment checklist to assess internal validity (bias and confounding) and external validity.

RESULTS: A total of 405 studies met inclusion criteria. There were 32 prospective and 373 retrospective studies describing a total of 32,795 patients. The majority of studies were incompletely or poorly described and outcomes were often not defined. When they were defined, definitions varied. In clinical outcomes ileal conduit diversions had the lowest operative complications rate but highest reported postoperative morbidity. They also had a higher reported incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infections. The rates of postoperative morbidity, mortality and need…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 32,795 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