Evidence Hub

Long-term follow-up of submucosal tunnel and serosa-lined extramural tunnel ureter implantation in ileocaecal continent cutaneous urinary diversion (Mainz pouch I)

Wiesner C, Pahernik S, Stein R, Hähn K, Franzaring L, Melchior SW, Thüroff JW

BJU international, 2007

458 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess upper urinary tract complications and renal function in patients with a submucosal tunnel and serosa-lined extramural tunnel ureter implantation during the long-term follow-up of ileocaecal continent cutaneous urinary diversion (Mainz pouch I).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 458 patients who had diversion with the ileocaecal pouch were analysed in a retrospective follow-up study. Uretero-intestinal implantation was done using a submucosal tunnel (ST) in 809 reno-ureteric units (RUs) and by the serosa-lined extramural tunnel (ET) technique in 74 RUs. The median age of the patients at the time of surgery was 47.1 years, and the median follow-up was 89.0 months.

RESULTS: For the ST, there was anastomotic obstruction in 59 RUs (7.3%) at a median of 16.8 months after diversion; the obstruction-free intervals at 1, 5 and 10 years were 97%, 93% and 91%, respectively. Obstruction rates were 13.9% for previously dilated upper tracts and 17.1% in patients with a neurogenic bladder. Serum creatinine levels were < or =1.6 mg/dL in 97% of the patients at the latest follow-up. For ET, there was anastomotic obstruction in three RUs (4.1%) at a median of 17.2 months after diversion. Obstruction-free intervals at 1, 5 and 10 years were 100%, 96% and 96%. Preoperative dilation of the upper tracts did not reduce the obstruction rate (3.1%), but it was 7.1% in patients with a neurogenic bladder. Serum creatinine levels were < or =1.6 mg/dL in 98% of the patients at the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 458 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