Evidence Hub

Long-term complications related to the modified Indiana pouch

Holmes DG, Thrasher JB, Park GY, Kueker DC, Weigel JW

Urology, 2002

112 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe a single-institution, single-surgeon experience with 125 modified Indiana pouches performed during a period of 14 years and their long-term complications. The modified Indiana pouch is a widely accepted and often used form of continent urinary diversion. Few studies have established the long-term complication rates associated with the procedure.

METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 129 modified Indiana pouches constructed from March 1985 to August 1998 was performed, and the long-term complications and reoperation rates were tabulated.

RESULTS: Complete information was obtained for 125 of the 129 charts, with a mean follow-up of 41.1 months (range 3 to 127). Complications occurred in 112 patients (89.6%; several patients had more than one complication), with a mean onset of 20.4 months (range 1 to 125) postoperatively. Seventy-three complications (58.4%) were due to the efferent limb, of which incontinence (defined as any leakage) was the most common (35 [28.0%]), followed by stomal stenosis in 19 (15.2%) and difficult catheterization in 12 (9.6%). Of the 26 pouch-related problems (21.8%) that occurred, the most common were stones in 13 (10.4%), perioperative leaks in 5 (4.0%), and perforations in 4 (3.2%). Ureteral anastomotic strictures were seen in 9 (7.2%). Other complications included gallstones in 32 (25.6%), kidney stones in 8 (6.4%), and small bowel obstruction in 6 (4.8%). Reoperation was performed in 65 patients (52.0%; several patients…

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: 112 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