metricas
Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition) Retrosigmoid ileal conduit versus traditional techniques after radical cystectom...
Journal Information
Cite
Cite
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
981
Resident section

Retrosigmoid ileal conduit versus traditional techniques after radical cystectomy: Impact on the incidence of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture

Conducto ileal retrosigmoideo frente a técnicas tradicionales tras cistectomía radical: impacto en la incidencia de estenosis de la anastomosis ureteroileal
Visits
981
C. Casanova-Martína,
Corresponding author
ccasanovam@salud.madrid.org

Corresponding author.
, M. Álvarez-Maestroa, A. Rodríguez-Serranoa, A. Gómez-Villanuevaa, A. Aguilera-Bazána, M. Serrano-Liesaa, J.M. Alonso-Dorregoa, M.Á. Ortega-Núñezb,c, E. Ríos-Gonzáleza, L. Martínez-Piñeiro Lorenzoa
a Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
b Departamento de Medicina y Especialidades Médicas, Facultad de Medicina y Ciancias de la Salud, Universidad de Alcalá, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en el Área Temática de Enfermedades Hepáticas (CIBEREHD), Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain
c Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Introduction and objective

Ureteroileal anastomotic stricture (UAS) is a relevant complication after radical cystectomy (RC). The retrosigmoid ileal conduit (RIC) may reduce its incidence by avoiding left ureteral transposition.

Objective

To compare the incidence of UAS, perioperative outcomes, and length of stay between RIC and conventional urinary diversions (Bricker/Wallace).

Material and methods

Retrospective, single-center observational study. All patients undergoing RC with bilateral urinary diversion were included: RIC between 01/2021–12/2024 and conventional techniques between 01/2018–12/2020. Primary variable: Multivariable logistic regression was performed using: age, body mass index (BMI), prior urinary tract dilation, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, and surgical technique. Secondary variables: operative time, 30-day postoperative complications (grouped as minor complications [Clavien 1-2] and major complications [Clavien ≥3]), time to stricture, length of hospital stay, and follow-up time after surgery.

Results

Seventy-one patients were analyzed: 36 RIC and 35 controls, with comparable baseline characteristics. UAS presented an incidence of 2.8% in RIC group and 22.9% in controls; the RIC technique was associated with a lower adjusted risk (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.002-0.35; P = .011). Operative time was shorter with RIC (median: 292 [IQR: 274–315] vs. 330 [308–360] min; p = 0.00025). There were no differences in major complications (11.1 vs. 17.1%; P = .51) or minor complications (33.3 vs. 42.9%; P = .41), nor in hospital stay (11.5 vs. 9 days; P = .23). The median follow-up was 18 months (RIC) and 39 months (control).

Conclusions

In our series, RIC significantly reduced UAS without increasing morbidity and was associated with a shorter operative time compared with traditional techniques. The results support the anatomical consistency and reproducibility of the technique.

Keywords:
Bladder cancer
Radical cystectomy
Retrosigmoid ileal conduit
Urinary diversion
Ureteroileal anastomotic stricture
Resumen
Introducción y objetivo

La estenosis de la anastomosis ureteroileal (EAUI) es una complicación relevante tras la cistectomía radical (CR). El conducto ileal retrosigmoideo (CIR) podría reducirla evitando la transposición ureteral izquierda.

Objetivo

Comparar la incidencia de EAUI, resultados perioperatorios y estancia entre CIR y derivaciones convencionales (Bricker/Wallace).

Material y métodos

Estudio observacional retrospectivo y unicéntrico. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes sometidos a CR con derivación urinaria bilateral: CIR entre 01/2021–12/2024 y técnicas convencionales entre 01/2018–12/2020. Variable principal: La regresión logística multivariable se realizó con: edad, Índice de masa corporal (IMC), dilatación previa de la vía urinaria, índice de comorbilidad de Charlson (ICC), puntuación en la escala Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) y técnica quirúrgica. Variables secundarias: tiempo quirúrgico, complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días (agrupadas en complicaciones menores [Clavien 1-2] y mayores [Clavien ≥ 3]), tiempo hasta la estenosis, estancia hospitalaria y tiempo de seguimiento tras la intervención.

Resultados

Se analizaron 71 pacientes: 36 CIR y 35 controles, con características basales comparables. La EAUI fue del 2,8% en CIR y del 22,9% en controles; la técnica CIR se asoció a menor riesgo ajustado (OR: 0,05; IC 95%: 0,002-0,35; p = 0,011). El tiempo quirúrgico fue inferior con CIR (mediana: 292 [RIC: 274–315] vs. 330 [308–360] min; p = 0,00025). No hubo diferencias en complicaciones graves (11,1 vs. 17,1%; p = 0,51) menores (33,3 vs. 42,9%; p = 0,41), ni estancia hospitalaria (11,5 vs. 9 días; p = 0,23). El seguimiento mediano fue 18 meses (CIR) y 39 meses (control).

Conclusiones

En nuestra serie, el CIR reduce significativamente la EAUI sin aumentar la morbilidad y con menor tiempo quirúrgico frente a las técnicas tradicionales. Los resultados respaldan su coherencia anatómica y reproducibilidad.

Palabras clave:
Cáncer de vejiga
Cistectomía radical
Conducto ileal retrosigmoideo
Derivación urinaria
Estenosis de la anastomosis uretero-ileal

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
asdasdasd
Article options
Tools