Technique of Ileal Conduit—Evolution of the Brady Method

  • Lowell R. King


It may seem presumptuous, and it may really be presumptuous, to write on the technique of ileal conduit surgery for an audience of highly trained urologists who competed successfully in an active residency training program and who have, as a group, pursued distinguished careers. On the other hand, though the mortality of the ileal conduit operation is below 2% in patients operated upon for benign disease, morbidity figures, particularly those reflecting long-term complications, remain quite variable. As an example, persistent infection is reported in some series in upward of 60% of conduits in patients with normal upper tracts. In my patients, this figure is about 10 in a comparable group. James Holland, reviewing “high” ileal conduits—those attached directly to the renal pelvis—found that only 40% remained infected in the postoperative period, a surprisingly good result when one considers that this form of diversion is elected most often in patients with extreme hydronephrosis(9). These better results are probably directly related to operative technique and since the technique to be described, albeit with many digressions, evolved at Brady over the years 1955–1962, it seems a particularly apt subject for description and review in a Festschrift piece written to honor Dr. William W. Scott on his twenty-fifth anniversary as Chariman of the Division of Urolgy at Johns Hopkins.


Urinary Diversion Silk Suture Ileal Conduit Left Ureter Ileal Segment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jewett, H. J., King, L. R., and Shelley, W. M. A Study of 365 cases of infiltrating bladder cancer. J. Urol. 98:668–678, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jewett, H. J. Uretero-intestinal anastomosis in two stages for cancer of the bladder: Modification of original technique and report of 33 cases. J. Urol. 52: 536–562, 1944.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cordonnier, J. J. Clinical diversion utilizing an isolated segment of ileum. J. Urol. 74: 789794, 1955.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stamey, T. A., and Scott, W. W. Ureteroileal anastomosis. Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 104: 1124, 1957.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    King, L. R., and Scott, W. W. Ileal urinary diversion. J.A.M.A. 181: 831–839, 1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wendel, R. M., and King, L. R. Experimental ablation of ureteral peristalsis. Invest. Urol. In Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    King, L. R., and Scott, W. W. Pyeloileocutaneous anastomosis. Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 119: 281–292, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland, J. M., Schirmer, H. K. M., King, L. R., Gibbons, R. P., and Scott, W. W. Pyeloileal urinary conduit: An 8 year experience in 37 patients. J. Urol. 99: 427–433, 1968.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flinn, R. A., King, L. R., McDonald, J. H., and Clark, S. S. Cutaneous ureterostomy: An alternative urinary diversion. J. Urol. 105: 358–364, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lowell R. King
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Division of UrologyThe Children’s Memorial HospitalChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The Department of UrologyNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations