Evidence Hub

Refluxing versus Non-Refluxing Ureteric Implantation in Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion: A Propensity-Scored Comparison regarding Long-Term Renal, Metabolic, and Functional Outcomes of Patients with Ileocecal Pouch

Schwinger M, Seitz AK, Kübler H, Kocot A, Riedmiller H, Kalogirou C

Urologia internationalis, 2025

120 participants

Abstract

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…

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: 120 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