Skip to main content

Ileocecal Cystoplasty (Ileocecocystoplasty)

Ileocecal cystoplasty is a form of augmentation cystoplasty that uses a detubularized segment of cecum and terminal ileum to enlarge the bladder. Its principal advantage over standard ileocystoplasty is the ability to simultaneously create a continent catheterizable channel using the ileocecal valve mechanism, while the colonic wall can support a constructed submucosal ureteral tunnel. Ureteral antireflux function is not supplied automatically by the native ileocecal valve.[1][2] Mainz Pouch I and Indiana-type continent cutaneous ileocecocystoplasty (CCIC) are related ileocecal reconstructions with different configurations and continence mechanisms; their operative steps and outcome cohorts should not be conflated.[1]

Indications​

Indications mirror those of ileocystoplasty — a poorly compliant or overactive bladder refractory to conservative management — but ileocecal cystoplasty is particularly favored when:[2][3]

  • A continent catheterizable stoma is needed (e.g., wheelchair-bound patients who cannot catheterize per urethra).
  • Ureteral reimplantation is required — the thick-walled cecum/ascending colon provides a reliable submucosal tunnel for antireflux implantation.[1]
  • The appendix is unavailable for a Mitrofanoff channel (the ileocecal valve itself can serve as the continence mechanism).

Common underlying conditions include neurogenic bladder (SCI, myelodysplasia), bladder exstrophy, and refractory IC/BPS.[4][5]

Surgical Technique​

A configuration-specific operative outline (not interchangeable steps for every ileocecal reconstruction):[1][4]

  1. Segment isolation: In the original Mainz configuration, cecum and two ileal loops form the reservoir. Indiana-type CCIC uses a colonic augment and a tapered terminal-ileal channel with an ileocecal continence mechanism. Segment lengths, detubularization limits, and colonic mobilization depend on the selected design.[6]
  2. Bowel continuity restoration: ileocolonic (ileoascending) anastomosis.
  3. Detubularization: cecum and ileal segments opened along their antimesenteric borders. Critical — early series that left the segment intact (non-detubularized) demonstrated persistent cecal contractions in 57–100%, contributing to incontinence and reflux.[7][8][9]
  4. Reconfiguration: opened segments folded and sutured into a spherical, low-pressure pouch.
  5. Cystotomy and anastomosis: native bladder bivalved; reconfigured patch anastomosed.
  6. Continent catheterizable channel (when performed as continent cutaneous ileocecocystoplasty, CCIC): the ileocecal valve can be used as the continence mechanism. Indiana-type CCIC uses a tapered ileal channel with reinforcement of the ileocecal continence mechanism. Mainz-type ileoileal nipple intussusception is a distinct option, not the same as leaving a native valve intact. Alternatively, the appendix can be tunneled submucosally into the cecal wall as a Mitrofanoff-type channel.[1][10][11]
  7. Ureteral reimplantation: when needed, ureters reimplanted into the cecal or ascending-colon wall via a standard submucosal tunnel.[1]

Minimally invasive approach: A hand-assisted laparoscopic CCIC has been described using a Pfannenstiel incision as the hand port and the umbilicus as the future stoma site — a retrospective comparison of 32 hand-assisted versus 21 open procedures found fewer 90-day Clavien grade 2 or higher complications (18.8% vs 47.6%). The open group had more prior augmentation/channel surgery; this does not prove a causal access benefit or long-term equivalence.[6]

Outcomes​

  • Bladder capacity: mean 185 → 595 mL in one series; +277 mL average in another.[2][4]
  • Detrusor pressure: significant reduction (e.g., 53 → 16 cm H₂O).[4]
  • Continence: 90–95% across multiple series.[2][4][12]
  • Upper-tract protection: 91% maintained or improved renal function in a historical 129-patient mixed-segment augmentation/replacement cohort; not an ileocecal-specific estimate.[13]
  • Voluntary voiding: in IC/BPS, ileocecal augmentation may increase the proportion who can void spontaneously without CIC compared to ileal augmentation alone.[5]

A retrospective series of over 800 continent cutaneous Mainz Pouch I diversions, rather than native-bladder augmentations, reported 92.8% day-and-night continence at mean 7.6 years. Use its valve/stoma data as related diversion evidence, not direct augmentation outcomes.[14]

Advantages Over Ileocystoplasty​

FeatureIleocecal CystoplastyIleocystoplasty
Catheterizable channelTapered ileum plus a surgically constructed/reinforced valve mechanism in CCICSeparate channel may be added when needed
Antireflux ureteral reimplantationThick cecal wall allows reliable submucosal tunnelThinner wall; alternative reimplantation needed
Channel revision4/31 CCIC vs15/30 tunneled channels in one retrospective adult comparisonThe comparison concerns channel types, not isolated ileocystoplasty
Metabolic acidosisRisk depends on segment, contact time, renal function, and emptyingNo established augmentation-specific advantage from the cited neobladder trial
EmptyingDepends on outlet, native bladder, and catheterization strategyNeobladder comparisons do not establish augmentation superiority
Surgical complexityGreater (hepatic flexure mobilization)Less extensive dissection
Bowel morbidityLoss of ileocecal valve → diarrhea riskPreserves ileocecal valve

In a retrospective 61-adult multicenter study at median 16-month follow-up, a channel intervention was required in 4/31 CCIC versus15/30 tunneled-channel patients (OR 6.4,95% CI 1.8–28 for tunneled channels). This short, nonrandomized comparison does not establish lifelong superiority.[15]

Complications​

  • Channel-related complications: Contemporary multicenter series of 114 adult CCIC (median 40 mo) — 42.1% required additional related surgery, most commonly for channel obstruction (13.2%) or incontinence (3.5%); 9.6% abandoned the catheterizable channel.[19]
  • Vesicoureteral reflux: the most common complication in early series, particularly when the segment was not detubularized (cecal contractions caused reflux at capacity in ~30%).[7][13]
  • Persistent cecal contractions: with non-detubularized segments, volume-dependent contractions persist in 100% even with anticholinergics, vs 10–12% with a detubularized patch.[8][9]
  • Urinary tract stones: ~5.6–10.8%, higher with intussuscepted ileal nipple (10.8%) than appendix stoma (5.6%).[14]
  • Stomal stenosis: 15.3–23.5%, depending on continence mechanism.[14]
  • Metabolic disturbances: hyperchloremic acidosis remains a concern. The cited 60-patient randomized comparison studied orthotopic neobladders after cancer cystectomy, not augmentation; it cannot establish a metabolic advantage of ileocecal augmentation.[16] Clinically significant acidosis primarily seen with pre-existing renal insufficiency.[13]
  • Bowel-related complications from ileocecal segment harvest:
    • Diarrhea: loss of ileocecal valve shortens transit time and impairs bile-salt reabsorption → mixed secretory-osmotic diarrhea, fat malabsorption, steatorrhea. Functional reconstruction of the ileocecal valve has been described to mitigate.[17][18]
    • Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency: terminal ileal incorporation and prior ileal disease/resection increase risk; monitor over time rather than treating a fixed 30 cm boundary as a guarantee of safety. IBD nutrition guidance is adjacent evidence, not a specific augmentation protocol.[17][20]
    • Cholelithiasis: bile-salt derangements increase pigment-stone propensity.[17]
    • Hyperoxaluria and urolithiasis: fat malabsorption → free oxalate absorption → calcium-oxalate stones.[17]
  • Hernia: open CCIC requires a long midline laparotomy → high rates of ventral and parastomal hernias; the hand-assisted laparoscopic approach was specifically designed to address this.[6]

Malignancy Risk​

An ileocecal-specific equivalence to other augmentation types has not been established. Adenocarcinoma (often signet-ring) is the most common histologic type, predominantly arising at the entero-vesical anastomosis with mean latency ~19–20 yr.[21][22] Whether augmentation itself is an independent risk factor remains debated; one matched cohort study found no significant difference (4.6% vs 2.6%, p=0.54).[23]

Long-Term Follow-Up​

  • Annual history, examination, symptoms, and review of reliable emptying; a continent cutaneous channel requires catheterization.
  • Annual metabolic panel (electrolytes, bicarbonate, renal function).
  • Annual urinary tract imaging, usually renal ultrasound, for hydronephrosis and stones.
  • Periodic vitamin B₁₂ levels.
  • Cystoscopy as clinically indicated.
  • Channel assessment for stenosis or continence issues.[3][19]

References​

1. Thüroff JW, Alken P, Riedmiller H, et al. "The Mainz Pouch (Mixed Augmentation Ileum and Cecum) for Bladder Augmentation and Continent Diversion." The Journal of Urology. 1986;136(1):17-26. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)44714-8

2. Sutton MA, Hinson JL, Nickell KG, Boone TB. "Continent Ileocecal Augmentation Cystoplasty." Spinal Cord. 1998;36(4):246-51. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3100500

3. 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

4. Luangkhot R, Peng BC, Blaivas JG. "Ileocecocystoplasty for the Management of Refractory Neurogenic Bladder: Surgical Technique and Urodynamic Findings." The Journal of Urology. 1991;146(5):1340-4. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38086-2

5. Queissert F, Bruecher B, van Ophoven A, Schrader AJ. "Supratrigonal Cystectomy and Augmentation Cystoplasty With Ileum or Ileocecum in the Treatment of Ulcerative Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: A 14-Year Follow-Up." International Urogynecology Journal. 2022;33(5):1267-1272. doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05110-y

6. Stout TE, Roth JD, Gor RA, Pariser JJ, Elliott SP. "Technique and Outcomes of Hand-Assist Laparoscopic Continent Cutaneous Ileocecocystoplasty." Urology. 2021;152:200. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.019

7. Mayo ME, Chapman WH. "Ileocecal Bladder Augmentation in Myelodysplasia." The Journal of Urology. 1988;139(4):786-9. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42637-1

8. Sidi AA, Reinberg Y, Gonzalez R. "Influence of Intestinal Segment and Configuration on the Outcome of Augmentation Enterocystoplasty." The Journal of Urology. 1986;136(6):1201-4. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45282-7

9. Goldwasser B, Barrett DM, Webster GD, Kramer SA. "Cystometric Properties of Ileum and Right Colon After Bladder Augmentation, Substitution or Replacement." The Journal of Urology. 1987;138(4 Pt 2):1007-8. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43483-5

10. Webster GD, Bertram RA. "Continent Catheterizable Urinary Diversion Using the Ileocecal Segment With Stapled Intussusception of the Ileocecal Valve." The Journal of Urology. 1986;135(3):465-9. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45693-x

11. Carroll PR, Presti JC. "Comparison of Plicated and Stapled Continent Ileocecal Stoma." Urology. 1992;40(2):107-9. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(92)90504-p

12. Thüroff JW, Alken P, Riedmiller H, Jacobi GH, Hohenfellner R. "100 Cases of Mainz Pouch: Continuing Experience and Evolution." The Journal of Urology. 1988;140(2):283-8. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41584-9

13. 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):579-84. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43264-2

14. Wiesner C, Bonfig R, Stein R, et al. "Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion: Long-Term Follow-Up of More Than 800 Patients With Ileocecal Reservoirs." World Journal of Urology. 2006;24(3):315-8. doi:10.1007/s00345-006-0078-y

15. Redshaw JD, Elliott SP, Rosenstein DI, et al. "Procedures Needed to Maintain Functionality of Adult Continent Catheterizable Channels: A Comparison of Continent Cutaneous Ileal Cecocystoplasty With Tunneled Catheterizable Channels." The Journal of Urology. 2014;192(3):821-6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.088

16. Khafagy M, Shaheed FA, Moneim TA. "Ileocaecal vs Ileal Neobladder After Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Bladder Cancer: A Comparative Study." BJU International. 2006;97(4):799-804. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05996.x

17. Steiner MS, Morton RA. "Nutritional and Gastrointestinal Complications of the Use of Bowel Segments in the Lower Urinary Tract." The Urologic Clinics of North America. 1991;18(4):743-54.

18. Fisch M, Wammack R, Spies F, et al. "Ileocecal Valve Reconstruction During Continent Urinary Diversion." The Journal of Urology. 1994;151(4):861-5. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35107-8

19. Cheng PJ, Keihani S, Roth JD, et al. "Contemporary Multicenter Outcomes of Continent Cutaneous Ileocecocystoplasty in the Adult Population Over a 10-Year Period: A Neurogenic Bladder Research Group Study." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2020;39(6):1771-1780. doi:10.1002/nau.24420

20. Hashash JG, Elkins J, Lewis JD, Binion DG. "AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diet and Nutritional Therapies in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Expert Review." Gastroenterology. 2024;166(3):521-532. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2023.11.303

21. Biardeau X, Chartier-Kastler E, Rouprêt M, Phé V. "Risk of Malignancy After Augmentation Cystoplasty: A Systematic Review." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2016;35(6):675-82. doi:10.1002/nau.22775

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

23. 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):2492-6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.038