Evidence Hub

Long-term multi-institutional evaluation of Charleston pouch I continent cutaneous urinary diversion

Abdallah MM, Bissada NK, Hamouda HM, Bissada AN

The Journal of urology, 2007

201 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: Charleston pouch I continent cutaneous urinary diversion has been used since 1989. We evaluated the long-term results of this procedure in 201 consecutive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of patients treated with the Charleston pouch I between 1989 and 2005 at 3 university hospitals were reviewed. Available data on age, sex, indications for diversion, comorbidity, followup duration, continence status, short-term and long-term complications, quality of life issues, and laboratory, radiological and urodynamic data were recorded. Patients were followed at 6-month intervals.

RESULTS: Followup was 14 to 136 months. Seven adults died in the 90-day postoperative period, and 21 (10.8%) and 51 (26%) patients had early and late complications, respectively. The interval between clean intermittent catheterizations was 2 to 8 hours. Mean capacity was 470 ml (range 250 to 1,300). At 12 months diurnal continence was achieved in 98% of the patients. A total of 98 patients (50.5%) needed night catheterization to stay dry. Of 342 ureters 17 (5%) became obstructed, requiring open or endoscopic management. Urolithiasis developed in 16 patients (8%). Vesicoureteral reflux was noted in 15 renal units (4.4%). Stomal complications developed in 8.2% of cases. Modest vitamin B12 supplementation was empirically used to avoid long-term deficiency. No detrimental effects on vitamin B12 concentrations were noted for up to 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS: Long-term multi-institutional followup…

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: 201 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