Skip to main content

Bowel Segments (GI Tissue)

Bowel segments — ileum, ileocecal segment, sigmoid / right colon, stomach, jejunum, and appendix — have been used in urologic reconstruction since the mid-1800s. They remain the enduring gold standard for augmentation cystoplasty, urinary diversion, neobladder, continent catheterizable channels, and ureteral replacement.[1][2]

Fundamental Principles​

Detubularization & Reconfiguration​

The single most important principle in bowel-based urologic reconstruction is detubularization — opening the segment along its antimesenteric border and reconfiguring it into a spherical shape.[3][4]

  1. Increased capacity at lower pressure — LaPlace: a sphere has the greatest volume-to-surface-area ratio; wall tension increases with radius.
  2. Disruption of peristaltic mass contractions — transecting circular muscle prevents coordinated pressure spikes.
  3. Superior compliance vs intact tubular bowel.
  4. Shorter bowel length required — patch > tube of the same length.

Tubular large-bowel configurations should be avoided — persistent mass peristaltic contractions occur in 34% of tubular vs 10% of patch segments.[5]

Segments & Applications​

1. Ileum — The Workhorse​

Reliable mesentery, easy mobilization, favorable compliance when detubularized.[1][7]

Augmentation (ileocystoplasty) — gold standard. 15–40 cm segment (sparing the terminal 15–25 cm to preserve the ileocecal valve and B12 absorption), detubularized, anastomosed to a bivalved bladder. In neurogenic pediatric series, continence improved 22.7% → 81.8%, with hydronephrosis resolution in 17/19 patients and improved eGFR at 13.4 yr mean.[8] In adults, mean capacity 166 → 572 mL and detrusor pressure 53 → 14 cmH₂O.[9]

Orthotopic neobladder — multiple configurations, all using 40–60 cm of detubularized ileum:[10][11]

  • Studer: ~55–60 cm ileum; 40 cm detubularized reservoir + 15–20 cm isoperistaltic afferent limb (chimney) for ureteral anastomosis — freely refluxing but protected by the chimney.[12][13]
  • Hautmann (W-pouch): ~60–70 cm ileum in W configuration; larger initial capacity.
  • I-pouch: ~40 cm ileum with antirefluxive ureteral implantation.[14][15]
  • Y-pouch, Padua, Florence, Bordeaux, Pyramid, Shell — comparable perioperative outcomes.[10][16]

Hautmann 35-yr single-center experience (259 men, 121 mo median): 87% voided spontaneously; daytime / nighttime continence 90% / 82%; pad-free 71% / 47%.[11]

Ileal conduit (Bricker) — most common diversion (> 80% post-cystectomy). 15–20 cm ileum as simple incontinent conduit with cutaneous stoma. Shortest OR time and fewest complications among diversion types.[17][6]

Ileal ureter replacement — for complex long ureteral strictures. 15–40 cm ileal interposition between renal pelvis / proximal ureter and bladder. Multi-institutional data show 91.7% surgical success at 24 mo median; radiation-induced strictures fare worse (76.9% vs 100%). Long-term renal data (n = 108, 51 mo median): effective preservation; bilateral reconstruction 3.7× risk of worsening renal function.[18][19]

Yang-Monti ileal ureter — 5–7.5 cm ileal segment subdivided into 2–3 equal parts, opened longitudinally, retubularized transversely → 12–18 cm tube of appropriate caliber. Less bowel, fewer metabolic complications, allows antirefluxive reimplantation. Long-term (68 mo median): significant eGFR and split renal function improvement; relative contraindication at eGFR < 30 mL/min.[20][21]

Continent catheterizable channels (Monti) — 2–3 cm ileal segment detubularized and retubularized transversely (Yang-Monti principle) → narrow catheterizable tube. ~91% continence open and robotic.[22]

2. Ileocecal Segment​

Exploits the ileocecal valve as a natural continence mechanism.

  • Mainz pouch — ileocecal detubularized reservoir; orthotopic or continent cutaneous. Stomal continence 91%, neobladder continence 75%.[23]
  • Indiana pouch — right colon (cecum + ascending colon) detubularized with a plicated / tapered terminal ileum as efferent catheterizable limb. Continence approaches 100% in compliant patients; mean revision-free survival exceeds 16 years.[23][24][25]
  • Charleston pouch — ileocolonic reservoir with minimally altered in-situ appendix as continent stoma.[26]
  • Miami pouch — modified ileocolonic; continence 79%; lower stomal stenosis than Mitrofanoff / Monti (7% vs 47%).[27]

3. Sigmoid Colon​

  • Sigmoid neobladder — detubularized. Meta-analysis vs ileal neobladder: more early complications, smaller capacity, lower compliance, worse daytime / nighttime continence (RR 0.87 / 0.73), but higher spontaneous voiding and smaller PVR.[28][29]
  • Sigmoid cystoplasty — similar urodynamic improvements to ileocystoplasty when detubularized; tubular sigmoid should be avoided.[5]
  • Sigmoid / descending-colon conduit — alternative to ileal conduit that avoids a small-bowel anastomosis (useful during pelvic exenteration). Metabolic long-term: hypokalemia 39%, hyperchloremia 24.4%, metabolic acidosis 34.1%.[30]

4. Stomach (Gastrocystoplasty) — Now Largely Abandoned​

Introduced for patients with renal insufficiency / acidosis or unavailable ileum/colon.[31][32]

Advantages: net HCl secretion rather than absorption → protects against hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (and may correct it); reduced mucus; acidic urine reduces bacterial colonization and stone formation; thick muscular wall facilitates ureteral reimplantation.[31][33]

Disadvantages:

  • Hematuria-dysuria syndrome (HDS) 17–51%, sometimes intractable, from acid secretion onto pelvic sensory nerves.[34][35]
  • Hypochloremic, hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis — risky in dehydration / renal compromise.[32][34]
  • Malignancy — Castellan 2012: 3 of 29 patients (10.3%) developed reservoir malignancy at 11–14 yr, all metastatic and fatal. 51.7% overall complication rate at 13.9 yr.[35]

Gastric segments are generally no longer recommended for routine LUT reconstruction.[2][35]

5. Jejunum — Avoid​

Severe hyponatremic, hypochloremic, hyperkalemic metabolic acidosis ("jejunal conduit syndrome") from massive Na⁺/Cl⁻ loss and K⁺/H⁺ secretion. Use is strongly discouraged.[36][2]

6. Appendix​

  • Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy — preferred tissue for continent catheterizable channels when available. Mobilized on its mesentery, reimplanted into the bladder with a submucosal tunnel for continence, brought to the skin (often umbilical). Continence 76–91%.[22][37][38]
  • Appendiceal interposition — feasible for right proximal/mid-ureteral strictures (appendiceal onlay ureteroplasty).[39]
  • Appendicovesicostomy has lower reoperation rates than Monti ileal channels (OR 3.37 higher for Monti).[38][40]

Metabolic & Nutritional Complications​

ComplicationIleum / ColonStomachJejunum
Acid-base disorderHyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (most common)Hypochloremic metabolic alkalosisHyponatremic, hypochloremic, hyperkalemic acidosis
MechanismNH₄Cl absorption + HCO₃⁻ secretionNet HCl secretionMassive Na⁺/Cl⁻ loss; K⁺/H⁺ secretion
Vitamin B12 deficiencyYes if terminal ileum used (annual monitoring)NoNo
Diarrhea / bowel dysfunctionYes (troublesome diarrhea persists in 19–59% > 8 yr)MinimalSevere secretory diarrhea
Urolithiasis18–36% (infection, mucus, metabolic)Rare—
OsteoporosisYes (chronic acidosis mobilizes bone calcium)No—
CholelithiasisYes (bile salt malabsorption with ileal resection)No—
Ammoniagenic encephalopathyRare but serious (hepatic dysfunction + acidosis)No—

Bowel dysfunction is underappreciated long-term. Somani 8-yr prospective cohort post-clam enterocystoplasty: troublesome diarrhea 59%, fecal incontinence 47%, fecal urgency 41%, 24% regret the procedure due to bowel symptoms.[41]

Chan 2026 pediatric data: children undergoing enterocystoplasty before puberty developed overweight / obesity significantly earlier (median age 10 vs 20), possibly from proportionally greater removal of anorexigenic-hormone-producing ileal tissue.[42]

Malignancy Risk​

All bowel segments incorporated into the urinary tract carry an increased risk of secondary malignancy — absolute risk low but real.[43][44][45]

DiversionReservoir cancer risk
Ureterosigmoidostomy2.58% (highest)
Cystoplasty1.58%
(Ileo-)colonic neobladder1.29%
Ileal neobladder0.05%
Ileal conduit0.02%
  • Latency: 20–36 yr median from reconstruction to diagnosis.[46][47]
  • Histology: adenocarcinoma is most common (especially after gastrocystoplasty and colocystoplasty); urothelial after colocystoplasty; molecular profile shows TP53, KRAS, MYC mutations similar to GI adenocarcinoma.[47][48][49]
  • Prognosis: typically advanced stage at diagnosis with 1-yr survival ~56%.[47]
  • Surveillance: endoscopy from 5 yr post-surgery for ureterosigmoidostomy / cystoplasty; 10 yr for other diversions; annual urine cytology from 10 yr.[43][44][50]
  • Higuchi matched cohort: augmentation cystoplasty may not be an independent risk factor — the underlying congenital bladder abnormality carries inherent cancer risk (4.6% vs 2.6% in controls, p = 0.54); immunosuppression was an independent predictor (15% vs 2.8%, p = 0.03).[51]

Urinary Diversion After Cystectomy — Comparative Outcomes​

FeatureIleal ConduitOrthotopic NeobladderContinent Cutaneous (Indiana)
Frequency> 80%~15%~5%
Bowel segment15–20 cm ileum40–60 cm ileumCecum + ascending colon ± ileum
StomaYes (incontinent)NoYes (continent, catheterizable)
Daytime continenceN/A67–90%89–100%
Nighttime continenceN/A40–82%73–96%
30-day complications48.9%Higher (56.0% all continent)Higher
30-day readmission20.4%30.3% (all continent)Similar to neobladder
Renal functionComparable long-termComparableComparable
Metabolic complications21%28%26%
Operative timeShortestLongestIntermediate

References: [6][10][17][52][53][54]

Segment Selection Summary​

SegmentPrimary applicationsAdvantagesDisadvantages
IleumAugmentation, neobladder, conduit, ileal ureter, MontiReliable mesentery, versatile, excellent complianceB12 deficiency, diarrhea, metabolic acidosis
IleocecalMainz / Indiana / Charleston / MiamiNatural valve, excellent continenceLonger segment, ileocecal valve loss
SigmoidNeobladder, augmentation, conduitSpontaneous voiding, avoids SB anastomosisLower compliance, worse continence
StomachGastrocystoplasty (rare)Protects from acidosis, less mucus, fewer stonesHDS, alkalosis, malignancy, high reoperation
JejunumNot recommended—Severe electrolyte derangements
AppendixMitrofanoff, right-side ureteral interpositionIdeal caliber for CIC, lowest revision rateLimited availability, right side only for ureter

See also: Bowel Anastomosis, Bowel Handling & Injury Management, Reoperative Bowel Harvest, Bowel Anatomy, Decellularized ECM, Rectus Fascia, Porcine Acellular Collagen Matrix.

References​

1. Hansen MH, Hayn M, Murray P. The Use of Bowel in Urologic Reconstructive Surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America. 2016;96(3):567-582. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2016.02.011

2. Roth JD, Koch MO. Metabolic and Nutritional Consequences of Urinary Diversion Using Intestinal Segments to Reconstruct the Urinary Tract. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2018;45(1):19-24. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.007

3. Schmidbauer CP, Chiang H, Raz S. The Impact of Detubularization on Ileal Reservoirs. The Journal of Urology. 1987;138(6):1440-1445. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43671-8

4. Hinman F. Selection of Intestinal Segments for Bladder Substitution: Physical and Physiological Characteristics. The Journal of Urology. 1988;139(3):519-523. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42509-2

5. Mitchell ME, Piser JA. Intestinocystoplasty and Total Bladder Replacement in Children and Young Adults: Followup in 129 Cases. The Journal of Urology. 1987;138(3):579-584. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43264-2

6. Lenis AT, Lec PM, Chamie K, Mshs MD. Bladder Cancer: A Review. JAMA. 2020;324(19):1980-1991. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17598

7. Cheng PJ, Myers JB. Augmentation Cystoplasty in the Patient With Neurogenic Bladder. World Journal of Urology. 2020;38(12):3035-3046. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02919-z

8. Chang JW, Kuo FC, Lin TC, et al. Long-Term Complications and Outcomes of Augmentation Cystoplasty in Children With Neurogenic Bladder. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):4214. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54431-z

9. Blaivas JG, Weiss JP, Desai P, et al. Long-Term Followup of Augmentation Enterocystoplasty and Continent Diversion in Patients With Benign Disease. The Journal of Urology. 2005;173(5):1631-1634. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000154891.40110.08

10. Piramide F, Turri F, Amparore D, et al. Atlas of Intracorporeal Orthotopic Neobladder Techniques After Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy and Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes. European Urology. 2024;85(4):348-360. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.017

11. Hautmann RE, Volkmer B, Egghart G, et al. Functional Outcome and Complications Following Ileal Neobladder Reconstruction in Male Patients Without Tumor Recurrence. More Than 35 Years of Experience From a Single Center. The Journal of Urology. 2021;205(1):174-182. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001345

12. Cody JD, Nabi G, Dublin N, et al. Urinary Diversion and Bladder Reconstruction/Replacement Using Intestinal Segments for Intractable Incontinence or Following Cystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;(2):CD003306. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003306.pub2

13. Bianchi G, Sighinolfi MC, Pirola GM, Micali S. Studer Orthotopic Neobladder: A Modified Surgical Technique. Urology. 2016;88:222-225. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.020

14. Izquierdo-Luna JS, Norz V, Bedke J, et al. A Modified Neobladder Technique: The "I-Pouch". Urology. 2021;147:318. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.017

15. Mischinger J, Abdelhafez MF, Rausch S, et al. Perioperative Morbidity, Bowel Function and Oncologic Outcome After Radical Cystectomy and Ileal Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction: Studer-Pouch Versus I-Pouch. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2018;44(1):178-184. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2017.10.208

16. Boonchai S, Tanthanuch M, Bejrananda T. Comparison of the Y-Pouch Orthotopic Neobladder and the Studer Technique After Radical Cystectomy. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2023;21(1):218. doi:10.1186/s12957-023-03112-8

17. Lee RK, Abol-Enein H, Artibani W, et al. Urinary Diversion After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Options, Patient Selection, and Outcomes. BJU International. 2014;113(1):11-23. doi:10.1111/bju.12121

18. Ji E, Naser-Tavakolian A, Kanabolo D, et al. Reconstruction of a Devastated Ureter: Multi-Institutional Experience With Robotic Intracorporeal Ileal Ureter Replacement. European Urology. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2026.01.011

19. Roth JD, Monn MF, Szymanski KM, Bihrle R, Mellon MJ. Ureteral Reconstruction With Ileum: Long-Term Follow-Up of Renal Function. Urology. 2017;104:225-229. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.02.026

20. Ali-el-Dein B, Ghoneim MA. Bridging Long Ureteral Defects Using the Yang-Monti Principle. The Journal of Urology. 2003;169(3):1074-1077. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000050151.66653.cc

21. Ali-El-Dein B, El-Hefnawy AS, D'Elia G, et al. Long-Term Outcome of Yang-Monti Ileal Replacement of the Ureter: A Technique Suitable for Mild, Moderate Loss of Kidney Function and Solitary Kidney. Urology. 2021;152:153-159. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.061

22. Galansky L, Andolfi C, Adamic B, Gundeti MS. Continent Cutaneous Catheterizable Channels in Pediatric Patients: A Decade of Experience With Open and Robotic Approaches in a Single Center. European Urology. 2021;79(6):866-878. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.08.013

23. Santucci RA, Park CH, Mayo ME, Lange PH. Continence and Urodynamic Parameters of Continent Urinary Reservoirs: Comparison of Gastric, Ileal, Ileocolic, Right Colon, and Sigmoid Segments. Urology. 1999;54(2):252-257. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00098-9

24. Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wang LC, Nguyen DP, et al. Is Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion a Suitable Alternative to Orthotopic Bladder Substitute and Ileal Conduit After Cystectomy? BJU International. 2015;116(5):805-814. doi:10.1111/bju.12919

25. Polm PD, Wyndaele MIA, de Kort LMO. Very Long-Term Follow-Up of Indiana Pouches Proves Durability. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2024;43(5):1090-1096. doi:10.1002/nau.25344

26. Bissada NK. New Continent Ileocolonic Urinary Reservoir: Charleston Pouch With Minimally Altered In Situ Appendix Stoma. Urology. 1993;41(6):524-526. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(93)90097-t

27. Pattou M, Baboudjian M, Pinar U, et al. Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion With an Ileal Pouch With the Mitrofanoff Principle Versus a Miami Pouch in Patients Undergoing Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. World Journal of Urology. 2022;40(5):1159-1165. doi:10.1007/s00345-022-03954-z

28. Tao S, Long Z, Zhang XJ, et al. Ileal Versus Sigmoid Neobladder as Bladder Substitute After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Surgery. 2016;27:39-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.044

29. Kato M, Takeda A, Saito S, et al. Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Ileal and Sigmoid Orthotopic Neobladder Procedures. Urology. 2007;69(1):74-77. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.023

30. Alemozaffar M, Nam CS, Said MA, et al. Avoiding the Need for Bowel Anastomosis During Pelvic Exenteration — Urinary Sigmoid or Descending Colon Conduit. Urology. 2019;129:228-233. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.015

31. Adams MC, Mitchell ME, Rink RC. Gastrocystoplasty: An Alternative Solution to the Problem of Urological Reconstruction in the Severely Compromised Patient. The Journal of Urology. 1988;140(5 Pt 2):1152-1156. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41986-0

32. Kurzrock EA, Baskin LS, Kogan BA. Gastrocystoplasty: Is There a Consensus? World Journal of Urology. 1998;16(4):242-250. doi:10.1007/s003450050061

33. Abdel-Azim MS, Abdel-Hakim AM. Gastrocystoplasty in Patients With an Areflexic Low Compliant Bladder. European Urology. 2003;44(2):260-265. doi:10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00260-4

34. Mingin GC, Stock JA, Hanna MK. Gastrocystoplasty: Long-Term Complications in 22 Patients. The Journal of Urology. 1999;162(3 Pt 2):1122-1125. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)68092-3

35. Castellan M, Gosalbez R, Bar-Yosef Y, Labbie A. Complications After Use of Gastric Segments for Lower Urinary Tract Reconstruction. The Journal of Urology. 2012;187(5):1823-1827. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.105

36. Steiner MS, Morton RA. Nutritional and Gastrointestinal Complications of the Use of Bowel Segments in the Lower Urinary Tract. Urologic Clinics of North America. 1991;18(4):743-754.

37. Leslie B, Lorenzo AJ, Moore K, et al. Long-Term Followup and Time to Event Outcome Analysis of Continent Catheterizable Channels. The Journal of Urology. 2011;185(6):2298-2302. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.601

38. Abdelhalim A, Omar H, Edwan M, et al. Reoperation for Channel Complications in Children With Continent Cutaneous Catheterizable Channels: The Test of Time. Urology. 2022;159:196-202. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.015

39. Xiong S, Zhu W, Li X, et al. Intestinal Interposition for Complex Ureteral Reconstruction: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Urology. 2020;27(5):377-386. doi:10.1111/iju.14222

40. Polm PD, Christiaans CHH, Dik P, Wyndaele MIA, de Kort LMO. Continent Catheterizable Urinary Channels: Lessons for Lifelong Urological Care From a Comparative Analysis. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2024;43(5):1083-1089. doi:10.1002/nau.25350

41. Somani BK, Kumar V, Wong S, et al. Bowel Dysfunction After Transposition of Intestinal Segments Into the Urinary Tract: 8-Year Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Urology. 2007;177(5):1793-1798. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.038

42. Chan M, Blanchette E, Rove KO. Pediatric Patients Undergoing Enterocystoplasty and Risk of Metabolic Disease: A Single Center Retrospective Study. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2026;45(1):225-230. doi:10.1002/nau.70169

43. Kälble T, Hofmann I, Riedmiller H, Vergho D. Tumor Growth in Urinary Diversion: A Multicenter Analysis. European Urology. 2011;60(5):1081-1086. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.006

44. Austen M, Kälble T. Secondary Malignancies in Different Forms of Urinary Diversion Using Isolated Gut. The Journal of Urology. 2004;172(3):831-838. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000134890.07434.8e

45. Li R, Baack Kukreja JE, Kamat AM. Secondary Tumors After Urinary Diversion. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2018;45(1):91-99. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.010

46. Cornell C, Khani F, Osunkoya AO, et al. Secondary Malignancy After Urologic Reconstruction Procedures: A Multi-Institutional Case Series. Human Pathology. 2022;119:69-78. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2021.11.004

47. Garnier S, Vendrell J, Boillot B, et al. Malignancy After Augmentation Enterocystoplasty: A Nationwide Study of Natural History, Prognosis and Oncogene Panel Analysis. The Journal of Urology. 2020;204(1):136-143. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000752

48. Anderson JA, Matoso A, Murati Amador BI, et al. Invasive Poorly Differentiated Adenocarcinoma of the Bladder Following Augmentation Cystoplasty. Pathology. 2021;53(2):214-219. doi:10.1016/j.pathol.2020.07.005

49. Stohr BA, Chan E, Anderson JA, et al. Molecular Characterization of Adenocarcinomas Arising in the Urinary Bladder Following Augmentation Cystoplasty. Human Pathology. 2022;129:98-102. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2022.09.003

50. Shokeir AA, Shamaa M, el-Mekresh MM, el-Baz M, Ghoneim MA. Late Malignancy in Bowel Segments Exposed to Urine Without Fecal Stream. Urology. 1995;46(5):657-661. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80296-9

51. Higuchi TT, Granberg CF, Fox JA, Husmann DA. Augmentation Cystoplasty and Risk of Neoplasia: Fact, Fiction and Controversy. The Journal of Urology. 2010;184(6):2492-2496. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.038

52. Khosla AA, Mendhiratta N, Jatwani K. Urinary Diversion After Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. JAMA Oncology. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.3644

53. Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, Bex A, et al. Urinary Diversions After Cystectomy: The Association of Clinical Factors, Complications and Functional Results of Four Different Diversions. European Urology. 2008;53(4):834-842. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.008

54. Rezaee ME, Atwater BL, Bihrle W, Schroeck FR, Seigne JD. Ileal Conduit Versus Continent Urinary Diversion in Radical Cystectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 30-Day Complications, Readmissions, and Mortality. Urology. 2022;170:139-145. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.020