Evidence Hub

Urinary diversion: how experts divert

Hautmann RE, Abol-Enein H, Lee CT, Mansson W, Mills RD, Penson DF, Skinner EC, Studer UE et al.

Urology, 2015

55,187 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of the available urinary diversion options for patients treated with radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in different settings (pioneering institutions, leading urologic oncology centers, and population based).

METHODS: Population-based data from the literature included all patients (n = 7608) treated in Sweden during the period 1964-2008, from Germany (n = 14,200) for the years 2008 and 2011, US patients (identified from National Inpatient Sample during 1998-2005, 35,370 patients and 2001-2008, 55,187 patients), and from Medicare (n = 22,600) for the years 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2001. After the International Consultation on Urologic Diseases-European Association of Urology International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012, the urinary diversion committee members disclosed data from their home institutions (n = 15,867), including the pioneering institutions and the leading urologic oncology centers. They are the coauthors of this report.

RESULTS: The receipt of continent urinary diversion in Sweden and the United States is <15%, whereas in the German high-volume setting, 30% of patients receive a neobladder. At leading urologic oncology centers, this rate is also 30%. At pioneering institutions up to 75% of patients receive an orthotopic reconstruction. Anal diversion is <1%. Continent cutaneous diversion is the second choice.

CONCLUSION: Enormous variations in urinary diversion exist for >2 decades. Increased attention in expanding the use…

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