Bricker ileal conduit vs. Cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review

ABSTRACT Purpose: A systematic review of the literature with available published literature to compare ileal conduit (IC) and cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) urinary diversions (UD) in terms of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of high-risk elderly patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC). Protocol Registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42020168851. Materials and Methods: A systematic review, according to the PRISMA Statement, was performed. Search through the Medline, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, Lilacs, and Cochrane Database until July 2020. Results: The literature search yielded 2,883 citations and were selected eight studies, including 1096 patients. A total of 707 patients underwent IC and 389 CU. Surgical procedures and outcomes, complications, mortality, and quality of life were analyzed. Conclusions: CU seems to be a safe alternative for the elderly and more frail patients. It is associated with faster surgery, less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, a lower necessity of intensive care, and shorter hospital stay. According to most studies, complications are less frequent after CU, even though mortality rates are similar. Studies with long-term follow up are awaited.

A Single-Institution Experience with Metallic Ureteral Stents: A Cost-Effective Method of Managing Deficiencies in Ureteral Drainage

IntroductionThe limitations of traditional ureteral stents in patients with deficiencies in ureteral drainage have resulted in frequent stent exchanges. The implementation of metallic stents was introduced to improve the patency rates of patients with chronic upper urinary tract obstruction, obviating the need for frequent stent exchanges. We report our clinical experiences with the use of metallic ureteral stents in the management of poor ureteral drainage.Materials and MethodsFifty patients underwent metallic ureteral stent placement from 2009 to 2012. Stent failure was defined as an unplanned stent exchange, need for nephrostomy tube placement, increasing hydronephrosis with stent in place, or an elevation in serum creatinine. Stent life was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, as this was a time dependent continuous variable. A cost analysis was similarly conducted.ResultsA total of 97 metallic stents were placed among our cohort of patients: 63 in cases of malignant obstruction, 33 in the setting of cutaneous ureterostomies, and 1 in an ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overall, stent failure occurred in 8.2% of the stents placed. Median stent life was 288.4 days (95% CI: 277.4-321.2 days). The estimated annual cost for traditional polymer stents (exchanged every 90 days) was $9,648-$13,128, while the estimated cost for metallic stents was $4,211-$5,313.ConclusionOur results indicate that metallic ureteral stent placement is a technically feasible procedure with minimal complications and is well tolerated among patients. Metallic stents can be left in situ for longer durations and provide a significant financial benefit when compared to traditional polymer stents.