Hybrid Ureteroenteric Anastomosis Is Associated With Lower Stricture Rates in Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion
Background Anatomic complications of the ureteroenteric anastomosis in ileal conduit (IC) cause significant
morbidity in patients post-cystectomy and cystoprostatectomy. The Bricker technique has a perceived disadvantage
of increased risk for stricture, whereas the Wallace technique runs the risk for ureteral malignancy affecting both
ureteric ends, and bilateral ureteric obstruction from a stone lodged at the anastomosis. We aimed to evaluate
the safety, efficacy, and stricture rate of a novel hybrid ureteroenteric anastomosis technique. We compared these
outcomes to the Bricker and Wallace anastomosis techniques for IC urinary diversion (ICUD).
Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone ICUD after cystectomy for
bladder cancer from 2011 to 2016. Patients were categorized into groups undergoing the Bricker, Wallace, and hybrid
ureteroanastomosic techniques. Strictures were identified during clinical follow-up or hospital presentations with
Results We identified 68 patients suitable for inclusion. They were separated by Bricker, Wallace, and hybrid
anastomosis techniques, with 19 (27.9%), 20 (29.4%), and 29 (42.6%) patients, respectively. Ureteroenteric anastomotic
strictures occurred in 9 patients (5 Bricker, 3 Wallace, 1 hybrid). This difference in stricture rates for Bricker versus
hybrid (26.3% vs. 3.4%; OR, 10 [95% CI, 1.1 to 121.1]; P = 0.02) was significant but was comparable for Wallace
versus hybrid (15.0% vs. 3.4%; OR, 4.9 [0.7 to 66.0]; P = 0.15) and for Bricker versus Wallace (26.3% vs. 15.0%;
OR, 2 [0.4 to 8.6]; P = 0.87). 15 patients (51%) in the hybrid group required oral antibiotics for a symptomatic urinary
tract infection compared with 4 (21%) with Bricker and 8 (40%) with Wallace (P = 0.10). Median post-cystectomy
follow-up and stricture formation time were 16 months (IQR, 4–36) and 9 months (7–32), respectively.
Conclusion The hybrid technique is a safe and efficacious alternative to the Bricker and Wallace anastomoses.
It carries with it a risk for urinary tract infection that is eclipsed by substantially lowered rates of ureteric strictures
requiring intervention while maintaining the advantage of separating the two ureters.
The Société International d'Urologie (SIU), which owns and publishes the Société International d'Urologie Journal (SIUJ), does not require authors of papers published in the journal to transfer copyright. Instead, we ask authors to grant an exclusive licence that allows us to publish the article in SIUJ (and any derivative or related products or publications) and that allows us to sub-license such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.
Authors retain the right to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking explicit permission from SIU.
The SIUJ publication licence expressly defines “non-commercial” as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” Although no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity, the following are generally considered to be non-commercial uses:
- Reproduction of a reasonable number (no more than 100) of print copies of the published paper for personal use (e.g., sharing with colleagues, including in grant applications).
- Posting a copy of the published version of the paper on the author’s own or their institution’s website. The article must be accompanied by this statement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link]’.
- Inclusion of the paper in a course pack, with a maximum of 100 copies to be used in the author’s institution. The copies must include the following acknowledgement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link].’
As the distinction between commercial and non-commercial is not always clear, authors are strongly advised to seek permission from SIU for any use that may be considered to have a commercial aspect.
We ask the corresponding author to read the terms of the licence and then to grant this exclusive licence on behalf of all authors by indicating agreement to the following statement:
The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the SIU and its licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in the SIUJ and any other SIU products and publications and to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence agreement.
Review and Decision
Most submissions will be reviewed by a senior editor within 2 weeks. Many manuscripts will be rejected at this point for a variety of reasons, including subject matter outside the scope of the SIUJ, flawed design, discredited or outdated methodology, poor organization or presentation, failure to conform to ethical requirements, and apparent plagiarism.The remaining manuscripts will be sent for peer review. The SIUJ uses a single-blind process: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors are not told who has reviewed their manuscript, and SIUJ ensures that potentially identifying information is removed from comments sent to them. Reviewers are asked to make their recommendations within 10 days, after which a senior/specialist editor will consider their comments and recommend provisional acceptance dependent on satisfactory revision, acceptance without revision, or rejection. Authors should receive a final decision within 4 to 6 weeks of submission.