Skip to main content

Hautmann W-Configuration Ileal Neobladder

The Hautmann neobladder is an orthotopic ileal reservoir arranged in a W configuration, detubularized and connected to the native urethra. The original 1988 publication described 11 patients and a 70 cm ileal segment. Subsequent modifications differ in bowel length, outlet construction and ureteral implantation.[1][2]

The Ulm reports represent a large institutional experience accumulated over decades. They do not represent more than 1,000 patients each followed for 35 years: the 2011 late-complication analysis included 923 patients with a median 72 months of follow-up; the 2021 functional report selected 259 recurrence-free men with a median 121 months of follow-up.[3][4]

Selection and Planning​

Discuss orthotopic, continent cutaneous and conduit options in the context of kidney/liver function, bowel suitability, cancer extent, sphincter function, the ability to empty or catheterize and patient priorities. Verify a negative urethral margin before orthotopic reconstruction. Patients must be able and willing to undertake the required self-care, including intermittent catheterization when necessary. Age alone is not an absolute contraindication.[5][6]

Inadequate renal or hepatic function, insufficient usable bowel, an uncorrectable urethral stricture and inability to manage a continent diversion may preclude reconstruction. EAU treats high-dose pelvic radiotherapy, complex urethral stricture and severe sphincter-related incontinence as relative contraindications. A historical label of any urethral disease or any leakage is too broad to decide eligibility. See Urinary Diversion Principles for detailed selection.[5][6]

Anatomy and Design​

  • Detubularized ileum: opening the bowel along the antimesenteric border interrupts coordinated tubular contractions. It does not remove smooth muscle or guarantee safe pressures.
  • Four-limb W configuration: adjacent edges are joined into a plate and the remaining edges closed into a rounded reservoir.
  • Dependent urethral outlet: the reservoir must reach the retained urethra without mesenteric tension, twisting or excessive outlet angulation.
  • Ureteral drainage: the original report used Le Duc–Camey implantation. A refluxing chimney or a serous-lined extramural tunnel is a distinct modification; the W shape does not itself determine the reflux mechanism.[1][7][8]

A rounded reservoir has a favorable volume-to-surface relationship. For an ideal thin-walled sphere, P = 2T/r at a given wall tension and volume varies with r³; doubling the radius gives eight times the volume. These relationships do not account for the changing wall tension, compliance, active contractions or geometry of a biological reservoir and cannot establish a safe storage pressure.

Hautmann W neobladderOriginal schematic · v2026-09-11 · Clinical review pending

Detubularized ileum is folded in a W configuration and closed into a reservoir connected to the urethra and ureters. Bowel length is illustrative. The Laplace relationship is for an ideal thin-walled sphere; a biological reservoir is not a perfect sphere or guaranteed low-pressure system. (Original WARWIKI schematic; see the figure source record and review limits.)

Operative Framework​

  1. Select the bowel and confirm reach. Preserve mesenteric blood supply and choose a segment that reaches the urethra without tension. The original 70 cm design and shorter published modifications are different constructions, not mandatory lengths for every patient.
  2. Isolate the planned segment and restore bowel continuity. Preserve appropriate terminal ileum and confirm mesenteric orientation.
  3. Detubularize the reservoir segment. Open along the antimesenteric border; leave any deliberately planned chimney intact.
  4. Form the W plate. Approximate adjacent limbs and suture their edges to construct the posterior reservoir wall.
  5. Construct the chosen ureteral anastomosis. Maintain ureteral perfusion and avoid tension or kinking. Select the technique deliberately rather than combining incompatible steps from different modifications.
  6. Create the dependent urethral outlet and close the reservoir. Achieve a tension-free pouch-to-urethra anastomosis and watertight reservoir closure. The sequence varies with approach and modification.
  7. Confirm drainage and leak-testing findings. Document stents, pouch drainage and the postoperative plan. Catheter caliber and removal timing should follow the actual reconstruction and healing assessment, rather than an uncited fixed schedule.[1][2][9]

Chimney modification​

An intact ileal limb provides reach for ureteral implantation and may simplify later access. Lippert–Theodorescu's three-patient report described a 5–10 cm or longer chimney when needed for a short ureter. Hollowell's 50-patient series used an 8–12 cm isoperistaltic chimney. These dimensions and variants should not be merged into one universal design.[10][7]

Direct ureteral implantation in the chimney is refluxing. Isoperistalsis is not proof of an effective valve. Hollowell reported six strictures in 100 ureteral units and one-year good daytime/nighttime continence of 93%/86%; this was an uncontrolled series, and the four-year experience in its title is not four-year follow-up of every patient.[7]

Short-segment modification​

Sevin's series used a 40 cm reservoir in 124 men operated on over ten years. It reported satisfactory capacity and continence in assessed patients, but also 58% mild-to-moderate metabolic acidosis and six deaths within 30 days. It does not demonstrate that using less bowel prevents metabolic complications or makes the operation safer than other designs.[11]

Robotic intracorporeal construction​

Small technical series establish feasibility. In Zhou's 40-patient single-surgeon report, functional assessment was available for 30 patients at six months and 20 at 12 months. Its 90% satisfactory daytime-continence rate at each visit is not a 40-patient complete follow-up estimate or necessarily a pad-free rate.[12]

The 2024 systematic review and atlas identified 19 studies describing nine intracorporeal configurations, but no eligible randomized or comparative cohort studies comparing configurations. Reported perioperative results were broadly similar across series, with important reporting variability; this is insufficient to establish equivalence or a preferred robotic pouch.[13]

Functional Outcomes​

Continence rates depend on the definition, patient selection and the number actually assessed. Separate no pads, a safety pad, daytime control and nighttime control.

Study populationRelevant findings and limits
Ulm 1999: 363 men, 290 functionally evaluableGood daytime and satisfactory nighttime continence were reported by 95.9% and 95%; the adverse category was more than one pad, so these are not strict pad-free rates. Some form of intermittent catheterization was used by 3.9% of evaluable patients.[14]
Ulm 2021: 259 men with more than five years of complete follow-up, excluding recurrence, irradiation and undiversionMedian follow-up 121 months, range 60–267. Reported day/night continence was 90%/82%, whereas pad-free rates were 71%/47%. Overall, 87% voided spontaneously and without residual urine.[4]
W-pouch with refluxing short afferent limb: 64 patients surviving at least five yearsReported 75% daytime and 55.3% nighttime pad-free rates among those voiding spontaneously; 12.5% required intermittent or permanent catheterization. Outcomes depend on both the definition and survivor selection.[15]

Function often improves during the first postoperative year, but long-term deterioration, retention and leakage remain possible. The excellent results in selected survivors beyond 20 years in the Ulm report do not prove continuous improvement or that every patient will eventually stop catheterizing, using pads or having mucus obstruction.[4][16]

Emptying and urodynamic assessment​

The ileal reservoir retains smooth muscle but does not have a native bladder's coordinated detrusor emptying mechanism. Emptying generally requires outlet relaxation and abdominal pressure; some patients need catheterization. Assess residual urine and investigate a change in emptying rather than attributing all difficulty to adaptation.[6][9]

Capacity, compliance, filling pressure, flow and residual urine must be interpreted together with symptoms and upper-tract findings. Values from separate small cohorts are not normal ranges. A 1998 nonrandomized comparison used different bowel lengths and implantation techniques in its Studer, W and U groups; it cannot isolate W-folding as the cause of superior continence or pressure at every time point.[17]

Complications and Upper-Tract Protection​

Cystectomy and neobladder construction carry substantial early and late morbidity. The 2011 Ulm analysis included 923 of 1,013 neobladder patients with follow-up beyond 90 days; median follow-up was 72 months. It reported an overall long-term complication rate of 40.8%. Selected 20-year Kaplan–Meier estimates were hydronephrosis 16.9%, incisional hernia 6.4%, febrile UTI 5.7% and ileus/small-bowel obstruction 3.6%. These estimates should not be mixed with raw counts as if every patient had 20 years of observation.[3]

Important late problems include ureteroenteric and urethral-outlet obstruction, incomplete emptying, stones, infection, mucus obstruction, bowel complications, fistula and rare pouch perforation. New abdominal pain, inability to drain, systemic illness or upper-tract change warrants prompt evaluation.[3][18]

Reflux versus obstruction​

A freely refluxing anastomosis and an antireflux tunnel have different tradeoffs. A short chimney, Le Duc–Camey implantation and a serous-lined extramural tunnel should not share a single blended stricture/reflux percentage. For details of the last technique, see Mansoura Neobladder.[7][8]

The consequential randomized evidence is USC-STAR, which compared Studer with T-pouch, not Hautmann with every alternative. Of 484 randomized patients, 423 had baseline outcome data and 260 contributed three-year renal data. Mean eGFR decline was 6.4 versus 6.6 mL/min/1.73 m² (p = 0.35); diversion-related secondary intervention was 13% versus 22%, respectively. The formal antireflux T-pouch did not show a renal benefit and required more diversion-related intervention.[19]

Obstruction is a major actionable cause of deterioration. Jin's retrospective analysis selected 161 survivors of at least ten years and found obstruction independently associated with renal decline in both conduit and bladder-substitution groups. This supports surveillance and correction of obstruction, not a guarantee that reflux or other renal insults are harmless.[20]

Metabolic and Nutritional Effects​

Monitor acidosis even when continence and emptying seem satisfactory. In the Ulm 923-patient cohort, 307 received long-term bicarbonate and 11 had episodes of severe acidosis. These are observed treatment counts in that cohort, not a universal lifetime probability.[3]

A separate retrospective Studer cohort of 123 patients defined acidosis as serum bicarbonate below 22 mEq/L and found it more frequently early after surgery, with kidney impairment and diabetes among associated factors. Those percentages are not Hautmann-specific. In another 345-patient rehabilitation cohort, improved continence was associated with greater alkali requirements during early recovery; the observation supports closer early monitoring but does not establish a mechanism or a lifelong schedule.[21][22]

Vitamin B12 should be checked annually after bowel diversion. A low number receiving supplements in an old series does not establish a low incidence of deficiency under systematic screening. Preserving terminal ileum reduces avoidable loss of absorptive tissue but does not eliminate the need for monitoring.[18]

Evaluate bone health according to acidosis, renal function and other clinical risk factors. The bone-density observation in only 20 patients in the Studer report is neither a Hautmann-specific result nor proof that osteoporosis risk is absent.[23]

See Vitamin B12 supplementation, Urinary acidifiers & alkalinizers, and Mucus management.

Reconstruction in Women​

Discuss both leakage and incomplete emptying, including the possibility of long-term catheterization. These outcomes vary with the retained outlet and pelvic support, surgical approach, patient characteristics and the definition used.[24][6]

  • Historical Ulm experience: 18 women underwent reconstruction, but only 13 were available for complete follow-up. Nine of those 13 required some intermittent catheterization. Two neobladder-vaginal fistula failures were converted to conduits and excluded. The often-quoted 70% figure is therefore a small selected series, not a mandatory risk estimate for every woman.[25]
  • Contemporary broader experience: a 2023 study of 195 women without disease recurrence included 95 followed beyond ten years. Among those 95, chronic retention occurred in 31 (33%) and renal function deteriorated in 46 (49%). This is not an isolated classic-Hautmann cohort and demonstrates why continence alone is an incomplete outcome.[26]
  • Patient-reported outcomes: Bahlburg's prospective rehabilitation cohort enrolled 395 patients, including 38 women; one-year female continence data were available for 25 women. Sixteen reported no more than one safety pad and three reported no pads. Its separate questionnaire-severity category is a different measure, not the complement of social continence.[27]

Urethral angulation and reservoir descent may contribute to poor emptying. Evaluate the actual outlet, residual urine, reservoir position and pelvic support; these findings do not justify assuming one mechanism in every patient. Assess associated pelvic support defects as part of the evaluation.[28][6]

Comparison with Studer and Other Designs​

Lee's retrospective 130-patient comparison included 93 Studer and 37 Hautmann reconstructions. Hautmann procedures were shorter (5.3 versus 5.9 hours) and hospital stay was shorter (7.0 versus 8.3 days) in that historical cohort. Continence differences were not statistically significant. Case selection, anastomotic variations and changing discharge practices prevent treating those findings as a proven intrinsic time advantage or equivalence of function.[29]

Modern intracorporeal evidence still lacks strong direct comparisons among reservoir designs. Discuss the operation a team can perform reliably, its specific emptying and surveillance demands and the patient's priorities, without implying that all named pouches have identical outcomes.[13][5]

Long-Term Surveillance​

Continue functional monitoring beyond intensive cancer surveillance.[18][30]

DomainFollow-up focus
Kidney and metabolic functionCreatinine/eGFR, electrolytes and bicarbonate. AUA recommends laboratory assessment every 3–6 months for the first 2–3 years after treatment and then annually, adjusted for clinical need. A rising creatinine must not automatically be labeled age-related.[30]
Upper tractImaging for obstruction, stones and other abnormalities, coordinated with cancer follow-up; investigate new dilation or renal deterioration.
Emptying and continenceVoiding pattern, residual urine, pad burden, catheterization technique and mucus/drainage problems.
Nutrition and boneAnnual B12; additional evaluation for nutritional symptoms, chronic acidosis and bone-health risks.[18]
Retained urethra and cancerRisk-appropriate oncologic follow-up and monitoring of the retained urethra. Symptoms or higher-risk pathology guide additional evaluation rather than one universal urethral-wash schedule.[30]

See Also​

References​

1. Hautmann RE, Egghart G, Frohneberg D, Miller K. "The ileal neobladder." J Urol. 1988;139(1):39–42. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42283-x

2. Frohneberg D, Bachor R, Egghart G, Miller K, Hautmann R. Ileal neobladder: principles of function and continence. Eur Urol. 1989;16(4):241–249. PubMed.

3. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG. "25 years of experience with 1,000 neobladders: long-term complications." J Urol. 2011;185(6):2207–2212. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.006

4. 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." J Urol. 2021;205(1):174–182. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001345

5. American Urological Association / American Society of Clinical Oncology / Society of Urologic Oncology. Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Amended 2024. Statements 13–14 and discussion, urinary diversion and urethral margins. Guideline PDF.

6. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Disease management, section 6.7.5, urinary diversion. Guideline.

7. Hollowell CM, Christiano AP, Steinberg GD. Technique of Hautmann ileal neobladder with chimney modification: interim results in 50 patients. J Urol. 2000;163(1):47–50. PubMed.

8. Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. "A novel uretero-ileal reimplantation technique: the serous-lined extramural tunnel. A preliminary report." J Urol. 1994;151(5):1193–1197. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35211-4

9. Lee YS, Jung HB, Choi DK, et al. "Functional assessment of the Hautmann ileal neobladder with chimney modification using uroflowmetry and a questionnaire." Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8209589. doi:10.1155/2016/8209589

10. Lippert MC, Theodorescu D. The Hautmann neobladder with a chimney: a versatile modification. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1510–1512. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64255-1.

11. Sevin G, Soyupek S, Armağan A, Hoşcan MB, Oksay T. "Ileal orthotopic neobladder (modified Hautmann) via a shorter detubularized ileal segment: experience and results." BJU Int. 2004;94(3):355–359. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04933.x

12. Zhou X, Zheng J, He P, et al. "Refinement surgical technique, and perioperative and functional outcomes in patients with robotic intracorporeal Hautmann orthotopic neobladder." Urology. 2020;138:45–51. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.025

13. 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." Eur Urol. 2024;85(4):348–360. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.017

14. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi R, Gottfried HW, et al. "The ileal neobladder: complications and functional results in 363 patients after 11 years of followup." J Urol. 1999;161(2):422–427. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)61909-8

15. Minervini A, Mariani C, Pagni R, et al. "Long-term functional outcomes in patients with a W-shaped ileal orthotopic neobladder with no antireflux mechanism." Urology. 2013;82(4):928–932. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.05.030

16. Soulié M, Seguin P, Mouly P, et al. "Assessment of morbidity and functional results in bladder replacement with Hautmann ileal neobladder after radical cystectomy: a clinical experience in 55 highly selected patients." Urology. 2001;58(5):707–711. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01354-1

17. Minervini R, Morelli G, Fontana N, Minervini A, Fiorentini L. "Functional evaluation of different ileal neobladders and ureteral reimplantation techniques." Eur Urol. 1998;34(3):198–202. doi:10.1159/000019712

18. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Follow-up, section 7.4, functional outcomes and complications. Guideline.

19. Skinner EC, Fairey AS, Groshen S, et al. "Randomized trial of Studer pouch versus T-pouch orthotopic ileal neobladder in patients with bladder cancer." J Urol. 2015;194(2):433–439. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.101

20. Jin XD, Roethlisberger S, Burkhard FC, et al. "Long-term renal function after urinary diversion by ileal conduit or orthotopic ileal bladder substitution." Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):491–497. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.004

21. Kim KH, Yoon HS, Yoon H, et al. "Risk factors for developing metabolic acidosis after radical cystectomy and ileal neobladder." PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158220

22. Müller G, Butea-Bocu M, Brock O, et al. "Association between development of metabolic acidosis and improvement of urinary continence after ileal neobladder creation." J Urol. 2020;203(3):585–590. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000583

23. Studer UE, Burkhard FC, Schumacher M, et al. "Twenty years experience with an ileal orthotopic low-pressure bladder substitute — lessons to be learned." J Urol. 2006;176(1):161–166. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00573-8

24. Anderson CB, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al. "Voiding function in women with orthotopic neobladder urinary diversion." J Urol. 2012;188(1):200–204. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.004

25. Hautmann RE, Paiss T, de Petriconi R. "The ileal neobladder in women: 9 years of experience with 18 patients." J Urol. 1996;155(1):76–81. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)66546-7

26. Zahran MH, Harraz AM, Baset MA, et al. "Voiding and renal function 10 years after radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder in women." BJU Int. 2023;132(3):291–297. doi:10.1111/bju.16011

27. Bahlburg H, Schuster F, Tully KH, et al. "Prospective evaluation of functional outcomes in 395 patients with an ileal neobladder 1 year after radical cystectomy." World J Urol. 2023;41(9):2367–2374. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04520-x

28. Arai Y, Okubo K, Konami T, et al. "Voiding function of orthotopic ileal neobladder in women." Urology. 1999;54(1):44–49. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00027-8

29. Lee KS, Montie JE, Dunn RL, Lee CT. "Hautmann and Studer orthotopic neobladders: a contemporary experience." J Urol. 2003;169(6):2188–2191. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000063941.31687.26

30. American Urological Association / American Society of Clinical Oncology / Society of Urologic Oncology. Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Amended 2024. Statements 31–32 and discussion, laboratory follow-up and retained urethra. Guideline PDF.