World Journal of Urology

, 27:51 | Cite as

Does reflux in orthotopic diversion matter? A randomized prospective comparison of the Studer and T-pouch ileal neobladders

Topic Paper



Orthotopic neobladder reconstruction has become a standard form of urinary diversion in many centers for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. There is still controversy about the best technique for construction of the neobladder, and especially whether it is necessary to include an antireflux mechanism.


We designed a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing two forms of ileal neobladder: the Studer pouch and the T-pouch. The latter includes an extraserosal tunneled afferent limb which prevents reflux from the pouch to the kidneys. The primary endpoint of the study is renal function and anatomy at 3 years following surgery, with secondary endpoints including early and late postoperative complications, renal infections and need for secondary procedures.


To date we have randomized 462 patients over approximately 6 years, with a planned full enrollment of 550 patients. Ten percent of patients have been withdrawn because they did not undergo the planned orthotopic diversion due to a positive urethral margin on frozen section. We expect approximately 70% of patients to be alive and available for follow-up at 3 years, which will give us ample power to detect clinically meaningful differences in the outcome of these two diversions.


This trial has been feasible and randomization has been acceptable to most patients. Long-term follow-up of the patients on this trial should be able to definitively answer the question of the importance of an antireflux mechanism in the orthotopic neobladders construction.


Urinary diversion Reflux Surgical technique 


Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hautmann RE (2003) Urinary diversion: ileal conduit to neobladders. J Urol 169:834–842. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000029010.97686.eb PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kristjansson A, Mansson W (1999) Refluxing or nonrefluxing ureteric anastomosis. BJU Int 84:905–910. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00395.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kristjansson A, Mansson W (2004) Renal function in the setting of urinary diversion. World J Urol 22:172–177. doi: 10.1007/s00345-004-0431-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Studer UE, Burkhard FC, Schumacher M, Kessler TM, Thoeny H, Fleischmann A, Thalmann GN (2006) Twenty years experience with an ileal orthotopic low pressure bladder stubstitute—lessons to be learned. J Urol 176:161–166. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00573-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berglund B, Kock NG, Philipson NL (1987) Volume capacity and pressure characteristics of the continent ileal reservoir used for urinary diversion. J Urol 137:29–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA (1994) A novel uretero-ileal reimplantation technique: the serous lined extramural tunnel. A preliminary report. J Urol 151:1193–1197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Ginsberg DA, Bochner BH, Skinner DG (1998) The T pouch: an orthotopic ileal neobladder incorporating a serosal lined ileal antireflux technique. J Urol 159:1836–1842. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63170-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stein JP, Skinner DG (2000) Application of the T-mechanism to an orthotopic (T-pouch) neobladder: a new era of urinary diversion. World J Urol 18:315–323. doi: 10.1007/s003450000144 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stein JP, Skinner DG (2006) Surgical atlas: the orthotopic T-pouch ileal neobladder. BJU Int 98:469–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06383.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, Groshen S, Feng A-C, Boyd S, Skinner E, Bochner B, Thangathurai D, Mikhail M, Raghanvan D, Skinner DG (2001) Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1054 patients. J Clin Oncol 19:666–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Theony HC, Sonnenschein MJ, Madersbacher S, Vock P, Studer UE (2002) Is ileal orthotopic bladder substitution with an afferent tubular segment detrimental to the upper urinary tract in the long term? J Urol 168:2030–2034. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64289-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waidlich R, rink F, Kriegmair M, Tatsch K, Schmeller N (1998) A study of reflux in patients with an ileal orthotopic bladder. Br J Urol 81:241–246Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suriano F, Gallucci M, Flammia GP, Musco S, Alcini A, Imbalzano G, Dicuonzo G (2008) Bacteriuria in patients with an orthotopic ileal neobladder: urinary tract infection or asymptomatic bacteriuria?. BJU Int 101:1576–1579. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07366.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perimenis P, Burkhard F, Kessler TM, Gramann T, Studer UE (2004) Ileal orthotopic bladder substitute combined with an afferent tubular segment: long-term upper urinary tract changes and voiding pattern. Eur Urol 46:604–609. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minervini A, Boni G, Salinitri G, Mariani G, Minervini R (2005) Evaluation of renal function and upper urinary tract morphology in the ileal orthotopic neobladder with no antireflux mechanism. J Urol 173:144–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madersberger S, Schmidt J, Eberle JM, Thoeny HC, Burkhard F, Hochreiter W, Studer UE (2003) Long-term outcome of ileal conduit urinary diversion. J Urol 169:985–990. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000051462.45388.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark PE, Montie JE, Klein EA (1999) Long-term follow up of renal function and upper tract status after ileal conduit urinary diversion. J Urol 161:247A. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61765-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Philip NH, Williams JL, Byers CE (1980) Ileal conduit urinary diversion: long-term follow-up in adults. Br J Urol 52:515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richie JP, Skinner DG, Waisman J (1974) The effect of reflux on the development of pyelonephritis in urinary diversion: an experimental study. J Surg Res 16:256–261. doi: 10.1016/0022-4804(74)90040-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    St Clair SR, Hixon CJ, Richey ML (1996) Enterocystoplasty and reflux nephropathy in the canine model. J Urol 148:728–732Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kristjansson A, Wallin L, Mansson W (1995) Renal function up to 16 years after conduit (refluxing or anti-reflux anastomosis) or continent urinary diversion. 1. Glomerular filtration rate and patency of uretero-intestinal anastomosis. Br J Urol 76:539–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kristjansson A, Wallin L, Mansson W (1995) Renal function up to 16 years after conduit (refluxing or anti-reflux anastomosis) or continent urinary diversion. 2. Renal scarring and location of bacteriuria. Br J Urol 76:546–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elder DD, Moisey CU, Rees RW (1979) A long-term follow-up of the colonic conduit operation in children. Br J Urol 51:462–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill JT, Ransley PG (1983) The colonic conduit: a better method of urinary diversion? Br J Urol 55:629–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Althausen AF, Hagen-Cook K, Hendren WH (1978) Non-refluxing colon conduit: experience with 70 cases. J Urol 120:35–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Song C, Kang T, Hong J-H, Kim C-S, Ahn H (2006) Changes in the upper urinary tract after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion: a comparison of antirefluxing and refluxing orthotopic bladder substitutes and ileal conduit. J Urol 175:185–189. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00068-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hautmann S, Chun KHF, Currlin E, Braun P, Huland H, Juenemann KP (2006) Refluxing chimney versus nonrefluxing LeDuc ureteroileal anastomosis for orthotopic ileal neobladder: a comparative analysis for patients with bladder cancer. J Urol 175:1389–1394. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00709-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elmajian DA, Stein JP, Esrig D, Freeman JA, Skinner EC, Boyd SD, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG (1006) The Kock ileal neobladder: updated experience in 295 male patients. J Urol 156(3):920–925. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65663-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stein JP, Freeman JA, Esrig D, Elmajian DA, Tarter TH, Skinner EC, Boyd SD, Huffman JL, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG (1996) Complications of the afferent antireflux valve mechanism in the Kock ileal reservoir. J Urol 155:1579–1584. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66131-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stein JP, Dunn MD, Quek ML, Miranda G, Skinner DG (2004) The orthotopic T pouch ileal neobladder: experience with 209 patients. J Urol 172:584–587. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000131651.77048.73 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyKeck USC School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations