Evidence Hub

Tumors following urinary diversions. Results of a multicenter study

Kälble T, Hofmann I

Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2011

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The risk estimation of secondary tumors after different types of urinary diversion with intestinal segments has as yet been possible only for ureterosigmoidostomy.

METHOD: We analyzed the operative records of 44 German clinics for urinary diversions performed from 1970 to 2007 and registered all reported secondary tumors up to 2009.

RESULTS: In 17,758 urinary diversions 32 secondary tumors occurred. The tumor risk in ureterosigmoidostomy (2.58%) and cystoplasty (1.58%) is significantly higher than in other continent forms of urinary diversion (p<0.0001). The risk in orthotopic (ileo)colonic neobladders (1.29%) is significantly higher (p=0.0001) than in ileal neobladders (0.05%). The difference between ileocecal pouches (0.14%) and ileal neobladders is not significant (p=0.46).

CONCLUSION: Ureterosigmoidostomies, cystoplasties, and orthotopic (ileo)colonic neobladders necessitate regular endoscopic evaluation from at least the fifth postoperative year. After ileal neobladders, conduits, and catheterizable ileocecal pouches regular routine endoscopy is not imperative.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

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