Skip to main content

Ileovesicostomy

Ileovesicostomy is a form of incontinent cutaneous urinary diversion that creates a low-pressure ileal conduit ("bladder chimney") from the bladder dome to an abdominal-wall stoma — without ureteroenteric anastomosis. Popularized by Schwartz, Kennelly, McGuire, and Faerber in 1994 for patients with severe neurogenic LUTD who cannot perform CIC and have suffered chronic-catheter morbidity.[1] Its key advantage over an ileal conduit is that it preserves the native bladder and ureterovesical junctions, avoiding a new ureteroenteric anastomosis and sometimes permitting later undiversion. Native ureterovesical junctions do not guarantee absence of reflux or upper-tract obstruction.[2][3]

Concept and Rationale​

Targets neurogenic-bladder patients who cannot perform CIC (poor hand function, immobility, body habitus, social/cognitive limitations) and have developed serious indwelling-catheter complications — urosepsis, calculi, urethrocutaneous fistulae, autonomic dysreflexia, progressive hydronephrosis.[1][4]

The procedure creates a tubularized ileal segment connecting the bladder dome to the skin for continuous low-pressure drainage into a urostomy bag. Unlike an ileal conduit, the ureters are not transected or reimplanted — they remain in their native position within the bladder wall.[2][3]

Indications​

AUA/SUFU permits ileovesicostomy in selected NLUTD patients and requires counseling about alternatives and the high likelihood of additional treatment or surgery (conditional recommendation, grade C). It is not the default for everyone unable to catheterize; obesity and a long poorly draining channel can make it unsuitable.[5] Specific indications:

  • High cervical SCI / tetraplegia — most common indication.[1][3]
  • MS with progressive disability precluding CIC.[2]
  • Myelomeningocele with failed prior management.[2][6]
  • Complications of chronic indwelling catheter drainage.[4]
  • Failed prior bladder management (sphincterotomy, augmentation, AUS).[2][7]
  • Pediatric patients unable to perform reliable CIC.[6]
  • Patients who are poor candidates for or refuse continent diversion or augmentation.[2]

Surgical Technique (Open, McGuire/Schwartz)[1][8][9]​

  1. Ileal segment harvest: 15–20 cm of terminal ileum on its mesentery; bowel continuity restored.
  2. Proximal detubularization: the proximal 6–8 cm is opened along the antimesenteric border to create a wide funnel for the bladder anastomosis.
  3. Cystotomy: dome opened widely.
  4. Ileovesical anastomosis: detubularized proximal ileum sutured to the bladder dome in a wide funnel — critical to prevent obstruction at the ileovesical junction.
  5. Stoma: distal ileum remains tubularized and is brought through the abdominal wall (typically RLQ) as a flush or budded stoma.

Key principles: ileal segment functions as a conduit (not a reservoir); ureters are not touched; a wide funnel reduces junctional narrowing, but stomal stenosis, angulation, redundancy, and retained debris can still impair drainage.

Concomitant procedures​

  • Pubovaginal sling (PVS) in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency from prolonged catheterization to achieve functional urethral closure.[8][10]
  • Bladder-neck closure may be considered for a nonreconstructible leaking outlet; it is not obligatorily preceded by a sling. Closure sacrifices native urethral access and makes dependable alternate drainage essential.[11][12]
  • Bladder calculus removal when stones are present.[8]
  • Anticholinergic therapy continued postoperatively for persistent detrusor overactivity.[2]

Minimally invasive approaches​

  • Laparoscopic (Hsu 2002): 5-port transperitoneal approach; OR ~4 hr.[13]
  • Robotic-assisted (Vanni/Stoffel 2009, n=8): 5-port; intracorporeal enterovesical anastomosis; extracorporeal bowel reanastomosis through stoma site. Median EBL 100 mL, OR 330 min, LOS 7.7 d; all functioning with median residual bladder volume 10 mL.[9]
  • Open vs robotic (n=15): comparable OR times; trends toward lower EBL (100 vs 257 mL) and shorter LOS (8 vs 11 d). Total inpatient cost higher with robotic ($17,344 vs $14,356), driven by OR supply costs.[14]

Outcomes​

SeriesnEtiologyFollow-upLow-pressure drainageUrethral continenceConversion to ileal conduit
Schwartz/McGuire 1994[1]23SCI (high)45 mo96%NR4%
Mutchnik/Boone 1997[3]6Tetraplegia12–15 mo100%100%0%
Atan/Chancellor 1999[2]15MS, SCI, other23 mo14/15 low-pressure drainageFour mild and one severe urge-leakage cases2/15
Leng/McGuire 1999[4]38SCI, MS, other52 mo83–91% normal compliance——
Gauthier/Winters 2003[8]7Tetraplegia37 mo100%100%0%
Tan/Latini 2008[11]50MixedVariable—72%—
Hellenthal 2009[7]12Neurogenic5.5 yr——17%
Vanni/Stoffel 2011[14]15 (7 open, 8 robotic)NeurogenicVariable100%Improved (p=0.02)0%
Ching 2014 (pediatric)[6]9Neurogenic / non-neurogenic48 mo100%89%0%

Leng/McGuire 1999 compared 38 patients with their preoperative catheter-management state; this cohort includes the earlier 23-patient series and is not independent evidence from it. The exact before/after complication-count reduction of 3.38→1.16 came from Tan’s 50-patient cohort, not Leng.[4]

Before surgery, Leng reported poor compliance in 50%, urosepsis in 45%, hydronephrosis in 21%, renal struvite stones in 18%, urethrocutaneous fistula in 18%, and autonomic dysreflexia in 13%. After surgery, 83–91% maintained normal upper tracts and storage compliance; the abstract does not provide a separate resolution rate for every preoperative complication.[4]

Comparative caution: in Husmann’s 48-patient retrospective cohort with complete urethral destruction, urosepsis hospitalization occurred in 14/17 after closure+ileovesicostomy, 6/10 after cystectomy+conduit, and 6/21 after closure+suprapubic drainage. Additional surgery occurred in 15/17, 5/10, and 11/21 respectively over median 8-year follow-up. Selection differed between groups; this is not a randomized ranking, but it directly challenges assumptions that ileovesicostomy invariably reduces long-term morbidity.[19]

Urodynamic outcomes​

  • Stomal leak point pressure: mean 7.7 cm H₂O (Mutchnik).[3]
  • Detrusor leak point pressure: 42.7 → 16.7 cm H₂O (p=0.0061, Gauthier).[8]
  • Compliance improved or normalized in 83–91% (Leng).[4]
  • Median residual bladder volume 10 mL postoperatively (robotic series).[9]

Advantages Over Ileal Conduit​

FeatureIleovesicostomyIleal Conduit
Ureteroenteric anastomosisNot requiredRequired (stricture risk ~7%)
Native UVJsPreserved anatomically; reflux may still occurReplaced by ureteroenteric anastomoses
Future reconstructionSelected undiversion may be possible if native anatomy/function permitsDepends on prior cystectomy, remaining anatomy, and clinical goals
Cystectomy requiredNo (bladder preserved)Usually performed
Surgical complexitySimpler (no ureteral dissection)More complex
Upper-tract obstructionNo new ureteroenteric junction, but other obstruction remains possibleUreteroenteric stricture is one recognized risk

The AUA/SUFU guideline notes that with longer follow-up, ileovesicostomy patients have an increased risk of requiring revision or alternate surgery. A 2026 perspective by Ginsberg favors conduit diversion for selected poorly compliant refractory bladders. This is an expert argument, not a comparative trial; conduit patients still require stoma, renal, and metabolic follow-up.[5][15]

Complications​

  • Stomal complications — most common; 38% (Tan 2008), with mean 1.47 stomal complications per affected pt; stomal stenosis 8–13% across series.[1][2][3][11]
  • Urethral incontinence — Atan reported four women with mild urge leakage managed medically and a separate woman converted to conduit/cystectomy for severe leakage. These should not be collapsed into 4/15 total leakage or a nested one-of-four conversion. 72% continent per urethra in Tan. Risk factors: severe preoperative detrusor hyperreflexia, intrinsic sphincter deficiency, female sex.[2][10][11]
  • Ileovesical mechanical obstruction — 22% in Tan; emphasis on creating a wide funnel anastomosis was Schwartz's response.[1][11]
  • Calculus formation — 33% in Atan (urinary stasis, chronic bacteriuria, mucus).[2]
  • UTIs — symptomatic 20% (Atan); 58% reduced antibiotic use / hospitalization (Hellenthal).[2][7]
  • Inflammatory/infectious complications — 54% (Tan).[11]
  • Reoperation rate — 54% in Tan (avg 2.85 reoperations per affected pt) — though overall complications still decreased significantly from 3.38 to 1.16 per patient.[11]
  • Conversion to ileal conduit — reported for intractable urethral incontinence or persistent fistula. Rates in these small early cohorts are not reliable estimates for all patients, particularly those with a devastated outlet.[2][7]

Risk factors for adverse outcomes​

Tan 2008: BMI trended toward significance (p=0.0569). Age, tobacco, diabetes, etiology, preoperative indwelling catheterization, and urethral closure were not significant predictors.[11]

Managing the Urethral Leakage Problem​

Persistent urethral leakage is the Achilles' heel of ileovesicostomy. Options:[2][10][11][12]

  1. Assess emptying, obstruction, reservoir pressure and outlet competence; treat demonstrated detrusor overactivity as appropriate.
  2. Occlusive pubovaginal sling is a selected salvage option with a preplanned alternate emptying strategy, not a standard tensioning instruction. Chancellor’s 14-woman series included only five ileovesicostomies; all were dry across mixed drainage strategies.[10]
  3. Bladder-neck closure may suit a devastated outlet. The cited 82–86% results concern closure with a suprapubic catheter, not a direct ileovesicostomy outcome estimate.[17]
  4. Conduit diversion with appropriately considered cystectomy may be needed for refractory leakage, poor drainage, or an unsalvageable reservoir. These options are not a mandatory sequential ladder.[2]

Continent Ileovesicostomy (Casale Modification)​

A separate continent modification using the Yang-Monti principle — a long, narrow catheterizable tube from a short ileal segment.[18] Distinct from the standard incontinent procedure; essentially a Monti channel.

Reversibility — A Unique Advantage​

Because the native bladder and UVJs are preserved:[2][16]

  • In neural recovery (incomplete SCI), the chimney can be excised and the bladder closed.
  • The procedure can be converted to an ileal conduit if it fails.
  • Particularly attractive for younger patients and those with potentially reversible neurologic conditions.

Long-Term Surveillance​

Lifelong annual surveillance per AUA/SUFU:[5]

  • Focused history, exam, symptom assessment (stoma, leakage, UTI, autonomic dysreflexia).
  • Basic metabolic panel (hyperchloremic acidosis monitoring).
  • Renal ultrasound for hydronephrosis and calculi.
  • Stoma assessment for stenosis, retraction, parastomal hernia.
  • Urodynamics to assess ongoing compliance and drainage adequacy.

Hellenthal: all 12 patients in the long-term cohort experienced some form of urinary tract problem during 5.5 yr of follow-up — continued surveillance is essential.[7]

Current Status​

A valuable but niche procedure:[2][5][16]

  • Consider only after discussing other workable drainage options, including suprapubic catheterization and conduit diversion. Possible reversibility alone does not establish a preferred procedure.
  • A severely fibrotic, very small, high-pressure bladder is not an automatically favorable candidate. Assess whether the retained bladder can drain safely; another diversion may be more appropriate.
  • Patient selection is critical — severe preoperative detrusor hyperreflexia in women is a risk factor for persistent urethral leakage; concomitant outlet procedures (PVS or BNC) should be considered.
  • High complication rate (54% reoperation rate in the largest series) and need for lifelong surveillance.

References​

1. Schwartz SL, Kennelly MJ, McGuire EJ, Faerber GJ. "Incontinent Ileo-Vesicostomy Urinary Diversion in the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction." The Journal of Urology. 1994;152(1):99-102. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32826-4

2. Atan A, Konety BR, Nangia A, Chancellor MB. "Advantages and Risks of Ileovesicostomy for the Management of Neuropathic Bladder." Urology. 1999;54(4):636-40. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00192-2

3. Mutchnik SE, Hinson JL, Nickell KG, Boone TB. "Ileovesicostomy as an Alternative Form of Bladder Management in Tetraplegic Patients." Urology. 1997;49(3):353-7. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00510-9

4. Leng WW, Faerber G, Del Terzo M, McGuire EJ. "Long-Term Outcome of Incontinent Ileovesicostomy Management of Severe Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction." The Journal of Urology. 1999;161(6):1803-6.

5. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. "The AUA/SUFU Guideline on Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Treatment and Follow-Up." The Journal of Urology. 2021;206(5):1106-1113. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002239

6. Ching CB, Stephany HA, Juliano TM, et al. "Outcomes of Incontinent Ileovesicostomy in the Pediatric Patient." The Journal of Urology. 2014;191(2):445-50. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.08.008

7. Hellenthal NJ, Short SS, O'Connor RC, et al. "Incontinent Ileovesicostomy: Long-Term Outcomes and Complications." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2009;28(6):483-6. doi:10.1002/nau.20695

8. Gauthier AR, Winters JC. "Incontinent Ileovesicostomy in the Management of Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2003;22(2):142-6. doi:10.1002/nau.10093

9. Vanni AJ, Cohen MS, Stoffel JT. "Robotic-Assisted Ileovesicostomy: Initial Results." Urology. 2009;74(4):814-8. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.03.038

10. Chancellor MB, Erhard MJ, Kiilholma PJ, Karasick S, Rivas DA. "Functional Urethral Closure With Pubovaginal Sling for Destroyed Female Urethra After Long-Term Urethral Catheterization." Urology. 1994;43(4):499-505. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(94)90241-0

11. Tan HJ, Stoffel J, Daignault S, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. "Ileovesicostomy for Adults With Neurogenic Bladders: Complications and Potential Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2008;27(3):238-43. doi:10.1002/nau.20467

12. Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. "Updates to Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU Guideline (2023)." The Journal of Urology. 2023;209(6):1091-1098. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435

13. Hsu TH, Rackley RR, Abdelmalak JB, et al. "Laparoscopic Ileovesicostomy." The Journal of Urology. 2002;168(1):180-1.

14. Vanni AJ, Stoffel JT. "Ileovesicostomy for the Neurogenic Bladder Patient: Outcome and Cost Comparison of Open and Robotic Assisted Techniques." Urology. 2011;77(6):1375-80. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.09.021

15. Ginsberg DA. "The Argument for Ileal Conduit for the Poorly Compliant Bladder in the Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Patient Refractory to Minimally Invasive Treatment." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2026. doi:10.1002/nau.70220

16. Sorokin I, De E. "Options for Independent Bladder Management in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury and Hand Function Prohibiting Intermittent Catheterization." Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2015;34(2):167-76. doi:10.1002/nau.22516

17. Willis H, Safiano NA, Lloyd LK. "Comparison of Transvaginal and Retropubic Bladder Neck Closure With Suprapubic Catheter in Women." The Journal of Urology. 2015;193(1):196-202. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.091

18. Casale AJ. "A Long Continent Ileovesicostomy Using a Single Piece of Bowel." The Journal of Urology. 1999;162(5):1743-5.

19. Husmann DA, Viers BR. Neurogenic bladder: management of the severely impaired patient with complete urethral destruction: ileovesicostomy, suprapubic tube drainage or urinary diversion—is one treatment modality better than another? Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:132–141. doi:10.21037/tau.2019.09.06.