Evidence Hub

Continent catheterizable tubes/stomas in adult neuro-urological patients: A systematic review

V. Phé, R. Boissier, Bertil F. M. Blok, Giulio DEL POPOLO, Stefania Musco, David Manuel Castro-Diaz, Bárbara Yolanda Padilla-Fernández, Jan Groen et al.

Neurourology and Urodynamics, 2017

213 participants · 41 citations

Abstract

AIMS: To systematically review all available evidence on the effectiveness and complications of continent cutaneous stoma or tube (CCS/T) to treat bladder-emptying difficulties in adult neuro-urological patients. METHODS: The search strategy and studies selection were performed on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane using the PICOS method according to the PRISMA statement (CRD42015019212; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). RESULTS: After screening 3,634 abstracts, 11 studies (all retrospective, enrolling 213 patients) were included in a narrative synthesis. Mean follow-up ranged from 21.6 months to 8.7 years (median: 36 months, IQR 28.5-44). At last follow-up, the ability to catheterize rate was ≥84% (except in one study: 58.3%) and the continence rate at stoma was >75%. Data comparing health-related quality-of-life before and after surgery were not available in any study. Overall, 85/213 postoperative events required reoperation: 7 events (7 patients) occurring ≤3 months postoperatively, 22 events (16 patients) >3 months, and 56 events (55 patients) for which the time after surgery was not specified. Sixty additional complications (60 patients) were reported but did not require surgical treatment. Tube stenosis occurred in 4-32% of the cases (median: 14%, IQR 9-24). Complications related to concomitant procedures (augmentation cystoplasty, pouch) included neovesicocutaneous fistulae, bladder stones, and bladder perforations. Risk of bias and confounding was high in all studies.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 213 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