Skip to main content

Gastrocystoplasty

Gastrocystoplasty is a form of augmentation cystoplasty that uses a vascularized wedge of gastric body wall to enlarge the bladder. First popularized by Adams, Mitchell, and Rink in 1988, it was developed to address the metabolic complications of enterocystoplasty — particularly hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis — by exploiting the stomach's unique secretory physiology (acid and chloride secretion rather than absorption).[1][2] However, gastrocystoplasty has become increasingly controversial and is no longer favored at many institutions because of two unique problems: the hematuria-dysuria syndrome (HDS) and a concerning malignancy risk.[3][4]

Indications​

Gastrocystoplasty shares the general indications for augmentation cystoplasty but is specifically considered when intestinal segments are disadvantageous:[1][2][5]

  • Chronic renal insufficiency — gastric segment secretes acid/chloride into the urine rather than absorbing them, avoiding hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and potentially producing favorable metabolic alkalosis.[1][6]
  • Short bowel syndrome / insufficient bowel — cloacal exstrophy or prior extensive bowel resections.[1][5]
  • Cloacal exstrophy — often combines both renal insufficiency and short bowel.[5][7]
  • Reduced mucus production desired — stomach produces significantly less mucus than intestinal segments.[1][3]

Surgical Technique​

The standard technique harvests a gastric body wedge flap based on the right gastroepiploic artery:[1][8]

  1. Gastric wedge harvest: wedge-shaped segment of gastric body excised, preserving the lesser curvature and vagus nerve to minimize postoperative gastric dysfunction; pedicle on the right gastroepiploic artery for robust blood supply.
  2. Gastric closure: primarily with staples or sutures.
  3. Pedicle tunneling: gastric flap on its vascular pedicle tunneled through the transverse mesocolon and into the pelvis.
  4. Cystotomy: native bladder bivalved.
  5. Anastomosis: gastric wedge sutured to the opened bladder, mucosa facing the bladder lumen.[1][8][9]

Concomitant procedures: ureteral reimplantation (thick gastric wall facilitates submucosal tunnel), bladder-neck procedures, continent catheterizable channel, and AUS.[2][7][8][10]

Continent gastric tube: gastric tissue can be fashioned into a continent catheterizable tube from the anterior gastric flap, simultaneously or as a secondary procedure.[9]

Demucosalized gastrocystoplasty: gastric mucosa stripped, leaving only the seromuscular layer placed over an autoaugmented bladder. Eliminates acid secretion. In 11 pediatric patients, capacity 109 → 236 mL, compliance 3 → 9 mL/cm H₂O, no metabolic complications, mucus-free urine.[11] See autoaugmentation.

Outcomes​

ParameterPre-opPost-op
Bladder capacityVariable225% increase (mean)
Maximum bladder pressure35 cm H₂O13 cm H₂O
Pressure-specific bladder volume (20 cm H₂O)—+177 mL increase
Continence rate—85–91%
Upper tract stable/improved—91–95%
Renal function preserved/improved—Majority (5/15 CKD 3–4 improved to normal eGFR)
Bladder stone rate—Extremely low (1/47 at 4.4 yr; 0/15 at 10 yr)
Bladder perforation—0% in most series

References: [1][2][3][4][12]

In the largest long-term renal outcomes study (Hubert, n=35, median 19 yr), the majority preserved or improved renal function; 5/15 patients with stage 3–4 CKD improved to normal eGFR (9 progressed to ESRD); no bladder malignancies in this cohort; 24% developed HDS.[12]

Advantages Over Enterocystoplasty​

FeatureGastrocystoplastyEnterocystoplasty
Metabolic acidosisAvoided; produces alkalosisHyperchloremic acidosis common
Mucus productionMinimal; no routine irrigations neededSignificant; irrigations often required
Urinary tract infectionsDecreased (acid urine is bacteriostatic)Higher rate
Bladder stonesExtremely low5–21%
Bladder perforationVery rare / 0% in most series3–10%
Short bowel syndrome riskAvoided (stomach preserved)Risk with ileal/ileocecal segments
Thick muscular wallFacilitates ureteral reimplantationThin wall (ileum)
Unique complicationsHDS, metabolic alkalosis, malignancyDifferent complication profile

Hematuria-Dysuria Syndrome (HDS)​

HDS is the signature complication of gastrocystoplasty and the primary reason the procedure has fallen out of favor at many centers. Defined as one or more of the following symptoms in the absence of infection:[15]

  • Bladder spasm or suprapubic / penile / periurethral pain.
  • Coffee-brown or bright-red hematuria without infection.
  • Skin irritation or excoriation (peristomal or periurethral).
  • Dysuria without infection.

Incidence: 17–36% across series; clinically significant (continuous medication required) in only ~4% in the largest long-term study.[3][15][16]

Risk factors[2][3][15]​

  • Sensate urethra (intact pelvic sensation): HDS in 75% of patients without neurogenic bladder (e.g., exstrophy, PUV) vs only 14% of those with neurogenic bladder.[3]
  • Urinary incontinence: wet patients are more prone to HDS.[15]
  • Renal insufficiency may increase risk.[15]

Pathophysiology​

The gastric segment continues to secrete hydrochloric acid as though it were part of the stomach — "once a stomach, always a stomach." Acid secretion is stimulated by meals (gastrin release) but not by bladder distention. Acid urine causes chemical irritation of the native bladder urothelium and periurethral / peristomal skin.[17]

Treatment[7][16][17][18][19]​

  • H₂ receptor antagonists (ranitidine, famotidine) — first-line; reduce acid secretion in ~50%.
  • Proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole) — when H₂ blockers are insufficient; have successfully treated severe metabolic alkalosis with hypergastrinemia in refractory cases.[19]
  • Anticholinergic agents can reduce acid secretion in some patients.
  • Prophylactic H₂ blockers / PPIs were used in 16/23 (70%) in one series to prevent HDS.[7]
  • Excision of the gastric patch with re-augmentation using intestinal segments — required in intractable cases (3/23 in Leonard; 1/29 in Castellan).[4][7]

Metabolic Disturbances​

Unlike enterocystoplasty (hyperchloremic acidosis), gastrocystoplasty produces hypochloremic hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis:[2][3][18]

  • Mean serum chloride ↓ 2.7 mEq/L; bicarbonate ↑ 3.3 mEq/L postoperatively.
  • In renal insufficiency, bicarbonate ↑ 8 mEq/L — protective against acidosis.[3]
  • Severe metabolic alkalosis is rare but potentially life-threatening (intractable seizures, altered mental status with respiratory depression); occurs primarily in dehydrated, renal-compromised patients; associated with hypergastrinemia and secondary hyperaldosteronism. Treatment: IV NaCl, arginine HCl, KCl, and H₂ blockers / PPIs; refractory cases may need patch excision.[18]
  • Experimental: gastrocystoplasty protected healthy rats from acid overload but failed to protect rats with chronic renal failure under the same conditions — the metabolic advantage may be limited in severe CKD.[20]

Malignancy Risk​

The malignancy risk is a major concern and one of the strongest arguments against the procedure:

  • Castellan (n=119): 4 (3.4%) developed carcinoma — 3 gastric adenocarcinomas, 1 TCC — all >10 yr after augmentation.[21]
  • Boissier (n=11, median 17 yr): 3 (27%) developed gastric adenocarcinoma on the gastric graft, 2 metastatic at diagnosis; 7/11 ultimately required excision of the gastric patch.[22]
  • Castellan complications series (n=29, mean 13.9 yr): 3 patients developed malignancy at 11, 12, and 14 yr — all 3 died of metastasis. Authors concluded: "We do not recommend the use of gastric segments for reconstruction of the lower urinary tract."[4]
  • Literature review: 14 total cases of gastric adenocarcinoma after gastrocystoplasty; majority presented with hematuria >10 yr postop; 36% died within 5 yr.[23]
  • French nationwide study: adenocarcinomas were the predominant histologic type after gastrocystoplasty (vs urothelial cell carcinomas after colocystoplasty); median latency 20 yr; 1-yr survival 56%.[24]
  • Experimental rat model: papillary hyperplasia in 53.8% of gastrocystoplasty (vs 40.9% sigmoidocystoplasty, 0% ileocystoplasty).[25]
  • Histopathologic surveillance at 10 yr: no malignancy but pathological changes (inflammation, metaplasia, hyperplasia) in 60% of gastrocystoplasty patients.[13]

Urodynamic Comparison With Other Segments​

Long-term urodynamic study of 84 patients (18 gastro-, 35 colo-, 31 ileocystoplasty):[26]

  • All three segments produced significant improvements in capacity, maximum intravesical pressure, and compliance (p < 0.05).
  • No significant urodynamic differences between segments at long-term follow-up.
  • Pathologic contractions: ileocystoplasty 26%, colocystoplasty 43%, gastrocystoplasty 50% — highest with stomach.

Complications Summary​

ComplicationIncidenceNotes
Hematuria-dysuria syndrome17–36% (clinically significant 4–22%)Higher in sensate patients; H₂ blockers / PPIs
Metabolic alkalosisMild common; severe rareRisk in dehydrated / renal failure pts
Malignancy3.4–27% (series-dependent)Adenocarcinoma predominant; latency >10 yr; poor prognosis
Surgical revision23%Patch contraction, ureteral obstruction, HDS requiring excision
Vesicoureteral reflux9–18%Despite thick wall for reimplantation
Bladder stonesExtremely low (~2%)Major advantage over enterocystoplasty
Bladder perforation0% in most seriesPeptic ulcer perforation in defunctionalized segments
UTI (febrile)20%Lower than enterocystoplasty
Mortality (long-term)~20% all-causeUTI-related sepsis in 2/35 in Hubert
Gastric patch excision required7/11 (64%) in Boissier; variable elsewhereHDS, malignancy, contraction

Peptic ulcer disease: unique complication — gastric segment can ulcerate, particularly when defunctionalized (not exposed to urine). Urine provides a buffering effect on gastric acid; without it, ulceration and even perforation can occur. H₂ blockers decrease ulceration in functioning (wet) gastrocystoplasties but have less effect on defunctionalized segments.[27][28]

Current Status and Recommendations​

Gastrocystoplasty has become highly controversial, with a clear trend toward abandonment at many centers.

Against continued use:

  • Castellan (n=29, 13.9 yr): "We do not recommend the use of gastric segments for reconstruction of the lower urinary tract due to the high incidence of reoperations and complications."[4]
  • Boissier (n=11, 17 yr): results "question the use of this technique for bladder augmentation, irrespective of the indication"; 7/11 required gastric-patch excision.[22]
  • Mingin (36% late complication rate): data "cast serious doubt on the long-term advantages of using stomach for bladder augmentation."[8]

In favor of selective use:

  • Kurzrock (n=47, mean 4.4 yr): gastrocystoplasty has "significant advantages over intestinal augmentation" but "should be avoided in sensate patients with sufficient bowel."[3]
  • DeFoor (n=44, median 9.8 yr): "remains an important option" specifically in patients with chronic renal insufficiency, metabolic acidosis, or short gut syndrome.[5]
  • Leonard: "may be considered in patients with cloacal exstrophy and/or metabolic acidosis."[7]

Remaining indications (consensus)[2][3][5][7]​

  • Cloacal exstrophy with both short bowel and renal insufficiency (the classic indication).
  • Chronic renal failure where hyperchloremic acidosis from enterocystoplasty would be dangerous, and insufficient bowel for enterocystoplasty.
  • Short bowel syndrome where ileum and colon cannot be sacrificed.
  • The patient should ideally have an insensate urethra (neurogenic bladder) to minimize HDS risk.
  • The procedure should be avoided in patients with normal pelvic sensation and adequate bowel.

Long-Term Surveillance​

Lifelong surveillance is required:[4][21][22][29]

  • Annual ultrasound of bladder and upper tracts.
  • Annual cystoscopy with biopsy beginning 10 years postop (or earlier if symptomatic).
  • Serum electrolytes (chloride, bicarbonate, potassium) for metabolic alkalosis.
  • Renal function monitoring.
  • HDS symptom assessment at each visit.
  • Patient education about tumor-related symptoms (new hematuria, pain, change in voiding pattern).

References​

1. 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):1152-6. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41986-0

2. Kurzrock EA, Baskin LS, Kogan BA. "Gastrocystoplasty: Is There a Consensus?" World Journal of Urology. 1998;16(4):242-50. doi:10.1007/s003450050061

3. Kurzrock EA, Baskin LS, Kogan BA. "Gastrocystoplasty: Long-Term Followup." The Journal of Urology. 1998;160(6 Pt 1):2182-6.

4. 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):1823-7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.105

5. DeFoor W, Minevich E, Reeves D, et al. "Gastrocystoplasty: Long-Term Followup." The Journal of Urology. 2003;170(4 Pt 2):1647-9. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000091220.86291.96

6. Chancellor MB, Erhard MJ, Strup S, Tammela TL. "Bladder Augmentation Using the Stomach in Spinal Cord Injured Patients With Impaired Renal Function." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1993;74(11):1222-4.

7. Leonard MP, Dharamsi N, Williot PE. "Outcome of Gastrocystoplasty in Tertiary Pediatric Urology Practice." The Journal of Urology. 2000;164(3 Pt 2):947-50. doi:10.1097/00005392-200009020-00007

8. Mingin GC, Stock JA, Hanna MK. "Gastrocystoplasty: Long-Term Complications in 22 Patients." The Journal of Urology. 1999;162(3 Pt 2):1122-5. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)68092-3

9. Close CE, Mitchell ME. "Continent Gastric Tube: New Techniques and Long-Term Followup." The Journal of Urology. 1997;157(1):51-5. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65278-9

10. Abdel-Azim MS, Abdel-Hakim AM. "Gastrocystoplasty in Patients With an Areflexic Low Compliant Bladder." European Urology. 2003;44(2):260-5. doi:10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00260-4

11. Nguyen DH, Mitchell ME, Horowitz M, Bagli DJ, Carr MC. "Demucosalized Augmentation Gastrocystoplasty With Bladder Autoaugmentation in Pediatric Patients." The Journal of Urology. 1996;156(1):206-9.

12. Hubert KC, Large T, Leiser J, et al. "Long-Term Renal Functional Outcomes After Primary Gastrocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 2015;193(6):2079-84. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.088

13. Vajda P, Kaiser L, Magyarlaki T, et al. "Histological Findings After Colocystoplasty and Gastrocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 2002;168(2):698-701.

14. Kispal Z, Balogh D, Erdei O, et al. "Complications After Bladder Augmentation or Substitution in Children: A Prospective Study of 86 Patients." BJU International. 2011;108(2):282-9. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09862.x

15. Nguyen DH, Bain MA, Salmonson KL, et al. "The Syndrome of Dysuria and Hematuria in Pediatric Urinary Reconstruction With Stomach." The Journal of Urology. 1993;150(2 Pt 2):707-9. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35593-3

16. Chadwick Plaire J, Snodgrass WT, Grady RW, Mitchell ME. "Long-Term Followup of the Hematuria-Dysuria Syndrome." The Journal of Urology. 2000;164(3 Pt 2):921-3.

17. Bogaert GA, Mevorach RA, Kim J, Kogan BA. "The Physiology of Gastrocystoplasty: Once a Stomach, Always a Stomach." The Journal of Urology. 1995;153(6):1977-80.

18. Gosalbez R, Woodard JR, Broecker BH, Warshaw B. "Metabolic Complications of the Use of Stomach for Urinary Reconstruction." The Journal of Urology. 1993;150(2 Pt 2):710-2. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35594-5

19. Kinahan TJ, Khoury AE, McLorie GA, Churchill BM. "Omeprazole in Post-Gastrocystoplasty Metabolic Alkalosis and Aciduria." The Journal of Urology. 1992;147(2):435-7. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37261-0

20. de Freitas Filho LG, Carnevale J, Leão JQ, Schor N, Ortiz V. "Gastrocystoplasty and Chronic Renal Failure: An Acid-Base Metabolism Study." The Journal of Urology. 2001;166(1):251-4. doi:10.1097/00005392-200107000-00077

21. Castellan M, Gosalbez R, Perez-Brayfield M, et al. "Tumor in Bladder Reservoir After Gastrocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 2007;178(4 Pt 2):1771-4. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.100

22. Boissier R, Di Crocco E, Faure A, et al. "What Is the Outcome of Paediatric Gastrocystoplasty When the Patients Reach Adulthood?" BJU International. 2016;118(6):980-986. doi:10.1111/bju.13558

23. Tran THT, Melamed J, Deng FM. "Gastric Adenocarcinoma Arising in Gastrocystoplasty." Urology. 2021;148:270-273. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.003

24. 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

25. Buson H, Diaz DC, Manivel JC, et al. "The Development of Tumors in Experimental Gastroenterocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 1993;150(2 Pt 2):730-3. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35599-4

26. Juhász ZS, Kispál Z, Kardos D, Vajda P. "Long-Term Urodynamic Findings Following Colo-, Gastro- And Ileocystoplasty." Pediatric Surgery International. 2024;40(1):131. doi:10.1007/s00383-024-05714-z

27. Castro-Diaz D, Froemming C, Manivel JC, et al. "The Influence of Urinary Diversion on Experimental Gastrocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 1992;148(2 Pt 2):571-4. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36656-9

28. Reinberg Y, Manivel JC, Froemming C, Gonzalez R. "Perforation of the Gastric Segment of an Augmented Bladder Secondary to Peptic Ulcer Disease." The Journal of Urology. 1992;148(2 Pt 1):369-71. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36600-4

29. Vemulakonda VM, Lendvay TS, Shnorhavorian M, et al. "Metastatic Adenocarcinoma After Augmentation Gastrocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 2008;179(3):1094-6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.089