Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 85–93 | Cite as

Update of the ICUD–SIU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2018: urinary diversion

  • Oscar Rodríguez FabaEmail author
  • Mark D. Tyson
  • Walter Artibani
  • Bernard H. Bochner
  • Fiona Burkhard
  • Scott M. Gilbert
  • Tilman Kälble
  • Stephan Madersbacher
  • Roland Seiler
  • Ella C. Skinner
  • George Thalmann
  • Joachim Thüroff
  • Peter Wiklund
  • Richard Hautmann
  • Joan Palou
Topic Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a comprehensive overview and update of the joint consultation of the International Consultation on Urological Diseases (ICUD) and Société Internationale d’Urologie on Bladder Cancer Urinary Diversion (UD).

Methods

A detailed analysis of the literature was conducted reporting on the different modalities of UD. For this updated publication, an exhaustive search was conducted in PubMed for recent relevant papers published between October 2013 and August 2018. Via this search, a total of 438 references were identified and 52 of them were finally eligible for analysis. An international, multidisciplinary expert committee evaluated and graded the data according to the Oxford System of Evidence-based Medicine.

Results

The incidence of early complications has been reported retrospectively in the range of 20–57%. Unfortunately, only a few randomized controlled studies exist within the field of UD. Consequently, almost all studies used in this report are of level 3–4 evidence including expert opinion based on “first principles” research.

Conclusions

Complications rates overall following RC and UD are significant, and when strict reporting criteria are incorporated, they are much higher than previously published. Complications can occur up to 20 years after surgery, emphasizing the need for lifelong follow-up. Progress has been made to prevent complications implementing robotic surgery and fast track protocols. Preoperative patient information, patient selection, surgical techniques, and careful postoperative follow-up are the cornerstones to achieve good results.

Keywords

Urinary diversion Radical cystectomy and complications MIBC and urinary diversions 

Notes

Author contributions

Protocol/project development: ORF, MDT, JP, RH. Data collection or management: all authors. Data analysis: ORF, JP, RH. Manuscript writing/editing: all authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

For this type of study formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hautmann RE, Abol-Enein H, Lee CT et al (2015) Urinary diversion: how experts divert. Urology 85:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Philips B, Ball C, Sackett D et al (2009) Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine—levels of evidence (March 2009). http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
  3. 3.
    Kalble T, Tricker AR, Friedl P et al (1990) Ureterosigmoidostomy: long-term results, risk of carcinoma and etiological factors for carcinogenesis. J Urol 144:1110–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalble T, Hofmann I, Riedmiller H et al (2011) Tumor growth in urinary diversion: a multicenter analysis. Eur Urol 60:1081–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravi R, Dewan AK, Pandey KK (1994) Transverse colon conduit urinary diversion in patients treated with very high dose pelvic irradiation. Br J Urol 73:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fontenot PA Jr, Barnes BD, Parker WP et al (2018) Postoperative outcomes after radical cystectomy in patients with prior pelvic radiation. Urology 116:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shabsigh A, Korets R, Vora KC et al (2009) Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol 55:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ballas L, Sargos P, Orre M et al (2017) Tolerance of orthotopic ileal neobladders to radiotherapy: a multi-institutional retrospective study. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eswara JR, Efstathiou JA, Heney NM et al (2012) Complications and long-term results of salvage cystectomy after failed bladder sparing therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol 187:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Volkmer BG, Gschwend JE, Herkommer K et al (2004) Cystectomy and orthotopic ileal neobladder: the impact on female sexuality. J Urol 172:2353–2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tyson MD, Chang SS (2016) Enhanced recovery pathways versus standard care after cystectomy: a meta-analysis of the effect on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 70:995–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cerruto MA, D’Elia C, Siracusano S et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of non RCT’s on health related quality of life after radical cystectomy using validated questionnaires: better results with orthotopic neobladder versus ileal conduit. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang LS, Shan BL, Shan LL et al (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life outcomes after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Surg Oncol 25:281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gacci M, Saleh O, Cai T et al (2013) Quality of life in women undergoing urinary diversion for bladder cancer: results of a multicenter study among long-term disease-free survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes 11:43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mansson A, Davidsson T, Hunt S et al (2002) The quality of life in men after radical cystectomy with a continent cutaneous diversion or orthotopic bladder substitution: is there a difference? BJU Int 90:386–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee RK, Abol-Enein H, Artibani W et al (2014) Urinary diversion after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: options, patient selection, and outcomes. BJU Int 113:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Somani BK, Gimlin D, Fayers P et al (2009) Quality of life and body image for bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion—a prospective cohort study with a systematic review of literature. Urology 74:1138–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mattei A, Birkhaeuser FD, Baermann C et al (2008) To stent or not to stent perioperatively the ureteroileal anastomosis of ileal orthotopic bladder substitutes and ileal conduits? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 179:582–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yong SM, Dublin N, Pickard R et al (2003) Urinary diversion and bladder reconstruction/replacement using intestinal segments for intractable incontinence or following cystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003306Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madersbacher S, Schmidt J, Eberle JM et al (2003) Long-term outcome of ileal conduit diversion. J Urol 169:985–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, Bex A et al (2008) Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions. Eur Urol 53:834–842 (discussion 842–834) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Springer J et al (2006) Early and late urodynamic assessment of ileal orthotopic bladder substitutes combined with an afferent tubular segment. J Urol 175:2155–2160 (discussion 2160–2151) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Waingankar N, Mallin K, Smaldone M et al (2017) Assessing the relative influence of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term mortality after radical cystectomy. BJU Int 120:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG (2011) 25 years of experience with 1,000 neobladders: long-term complications. J Urol 185:2207–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Studer UE, Danuser H, Thalmann GN et al (1996) Antireflux nipples or afferent tubular segments in 70 patients with ileal low pressure bladder substitutes: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 156:1913–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gross T, Meierhans Ruf SD, Meissner C et al (2015) orthotopic ileal bladder substitution in women: factors influencing urinary incontinence and hypercontinence. Eur Urol 68:664–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG, Schumacher MC et al (2006) Long-term results of standard procedures in urology: the ileal neobladder. World J Urol 24:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elshal AM, Abol-Enein H, Mosbah A et al (2012) Serous-lined unidirectional valve for construction of continent cutaneous urinary reservoir: the test of time. Urology 80:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nazmy M, Yuh B, Kawachi M et al (2014) Early and late complications of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a standardized analysis by urinary diversion type. J Urol 191:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ishioka J, Kageyama Y, Inoue M et al (2008) Prognostic model for predicting survival after palliative urinary diversion for ureteral obstruction: analysis of 140 cases. J Urol 180:618–621 (discussion 621) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gilja I, Kovacic M, Radej M et al (1996) The sigmoidorectal pouch (Mainz pouch II). Eur Urol 29:210–215Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gerharz EW, Kohl UN, Weingartner K et al (1998) Experience with the Mainz modification of ureterosigmoidostomy. Br J Surg 85:1512–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hautmann RE, Abol-Enein H, Davidsson T et al (2013) ICUD–EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012: urinary diversion. Eur Urol 63:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li K, Lin T, Fan X et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy. Cancer Treat Rev 39:551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leow JJ, Reese S, Trinh QD et al (2015) Impact of surgeon volume on the morbidity and costs of radical cystectomy in the USA: a contemporary population-based analysis. BJU Int 115:713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang YL, Jiang B, Yin FF et al (2015) Perioperative blood transfusion promotes worse outcomes of bladder cancer after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0130122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abel EJ, Linder BJ, Bauman TM et al (2014) Perioperative blood transfusion and radical cystectomy: does timing of transfusion affect bladder cancer mortality? Eur Urol 66:1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kretschmer A, Grimm T, Buchner A et al (2017) Prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life after radical cystectomy: focus on peri- and postoperative complications. World J Urol 35:1223–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP et al (2018) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 391:2525–2536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tyritzis SI, Hosseini A, Collins J et al (2013) Oncologic, functional, and complications outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal neobladder diversion. Eur Urol 64:734–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ahmed K, Khan SA, Hayn MH et al (2014) Analysis of intracorporeal compared with extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 65:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Izumi K, Mizokami A, Maeda Y et al (2011) Current outcome of patients with ureteral stents for the management of malignant ureteral obstruction. J Urol 185:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Desgrandchamps F, Leroux S, Ravery V et al (2007) Subcutaneous pyelovesical bypass as replacement for standard percutaneous nephrostomy for palliative urinary diversion: prospective evaluation of patient’s quality of life. J Endourol 21:173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shekarriz B, Shekarriz H, Upadhyay J et al (1999) Outcome of palliative urinary diversion in the treatment of advanced malignancies. Cancer 85:998–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R et al (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 57:196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J et al (2013) Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K et al (2016) A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol 69:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Richards KA, Kader AK, Otto R et al (2012) Is robot-assisted radical cystectomy justified in the elderly? A comparison of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in elderly ≥ 75 years old. J Endourol 26:1301–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Knox ML, El-Galley R, Busby JE (2013) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol 27:40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD et al (2015) Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 67:1042–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hu JC, Chughtai B, O’Malley P et al (2016) Perioperative outcomes, health care costs, and survival after robotic-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a national comparative effectiveness study. Eur Urol 70:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Rodríguez Faba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark D. Tyson
    • 2
  • Walter Artibani
    • 3
  • Bernard H. Bochner
    • 4
  • Fiona Burkhard
    • 5
  • Scott M. Gilbert
    • 6
  • Tilman Kälble
    • 7
  • Stephan Madersbacher
    • 8
  • Roland Seiler
    • 9
  • Ella C. Skinner
    • 10
  • George Thalmann
    • 9
  • Joachim Thüroff
    • 11
  • Peter Wiklund
    • 12
  • Richard Hautmann
    • 13
  • Joan Palou
    • 1
  1. 1.Urological Oncology Unit, Department of Urology, Fundació PuigvertUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of UrologyMayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA
  3. 3.Urology ClinicVerona Integrated University HospitalVeronaItaly
  4. 4.Urology Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of UrologyInselspital BernBernSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Genitourinary OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  7. 7.Urology and Pediatric Urology ClinicKlinikum FuldaFuldaGermany
  8. 8.Urology DepartmentKaiser-Franz-Josef HospitalViennaAustria
  9. 9.Uro-Oncology and Prostate Centre, Department of UrologyInselspital BernBernSwitzerland
  10. 10.Urologic Oncology, Department of UrologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  11. 11.Department of UrologyUniversity Clinic MannheimMannheimGermany
  12. 12.Department of Urology, Department of Molecular Medicine and SurgeryKarolinska University HospitalSolnaSweden
  13. 13.Department of UrologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations