Retrosigmoid Versus Traditional Ileal Conduit for Urinary Diversion After Radical Cystectomy.

Ficarra, Vincenzo; Giannarini, Gianluca; Crestani, Alessandro; Palumbo, Vito; Rossanese, Marta; Valotto, Claudio; Inferrera, Antonino; Pansadoro, Vito

BACKGROUND Ureteroileal anastomotic stricture (UAS) after ileal conduit diversion occurs in a non-negligible proportion of patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). Surgical techniques aimed at preventing this potential complication are sought. OBJECTIVE To describe our surgical technique of retrosigmoid ileal conduit, and to assess perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications with a focus on UAS rate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective single-centre, single-surgeon cohort of 67 consecutive patients undergoing open RC with ileal conduit urinary diversion between July 2013 and April 2017 was analysed. A study group of 30 patients receiving retrosigmoid ileal conduit was compared with a control group of 37 patients receiving standard Wallace ileal conduit. SURGICAL PROCEDURE Retrosigmoid versus Wallace ileal conduit diversion after open RC. MEASUREMENTS Operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion rate, and 90-d postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. In particular, rate of UAS, defined as upper collecting system dilatation requiring endourological or surgical management, was assessed and compared. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The two groups were comparable with regard to all demographic, clinical, and pathological variables. No differences were observed in terms of OR time (p=0.35), EBL (p=0.12), and transfusion rate (p=0.81). Ninety-day postoperative complications were observed in 11 (36.7%) patients who underwent a retrosigmoid ileal conduit and 20 (54.1%) patients who received a traditional ileal conduit (p=0.32). Major complications (grade 3-4) were observed in three (10%) cases in the former group and in 12 (32.4%) cases in the latter group (p=0.08). Mean (standard deviation) follow-up time was 10.8±4.0 mo in the study group and 27.5±9.5 mo in the control group (p<0.001). No single case of UAS was observed in the study group, whereas six (16.2%) cases of UAS occurred in the control group (p=0.02). The main limitation is a nonrandomised comparison of a relatively small cohort with short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS In our study, we observed a significantly reduced rate of UAS and no increase in postoperative complications with the retrosigmoid ileal conduit diversion compared with standard Wallace ileal conduit diversion after open RC. PATIENT SUMMARY We describe our surgical technique of retrosigmoid ileal conduit as urinary diversion after open radical cystectomy. Compared with traditional techniques, our technique for ileal conduit was found to be safe and reduce the risk of ureteric strictures.