Skip to main content

Hautmann W-Configuration Ileal Neobladder

The Hautmann ileal neobladder is an orthotopic bladder substitute constructed from a W-shaped, fully detubularized 60–70 cm distal-ileum segment anastomosed to the native urethra, allowing voiding per urethra without a stoma or external appliance. First described by Richard Hautmann at Ulm in 1986, it is one of the two most widely performed orthotopic neobladder techniques worldwide (alongside the Studer neobladder) and carries the largest single-center experience — > 1,000 neobladders with > 35 yr of follow-up.[1][2][3][4]

Historical Development​

YearMilestone
1986Hautmann / Egghart / Frohneberg / Miller — original W-configuration ileal neobladder, 70 cm ileum[5][3]
1988First published series (n = 11) — 8/11 completely dry day and night[3]
1997Lippert / Theodorescu — chimney modification with 8–12 cm isoperistaltic ileal limb[6][7]
1999Hautmann landmark 363-pt series at 11 yr[1]
20111,000-neobladder milestone (n = 923 with > 90-d FU; median 72 mo)[4]
202135-yr experience (n = 259 tumor-free males; median FU 121 mo)[2]

Anatomy and Design Principles​

Based on fundamental reservoir physics:[5][3]

  • Bowel segment: 60–70 cm of distal ileum isolated ~ 25 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve
  • Detubularization: opened along entire antimesenteric border; disrupts coordinated peristalsis, converting high-pressure tubular contractions into low-amplitude disorganized activity
  • W-configuration: ileal plate folded four times (W shape) and adjacent edges sutured to form a near-spherical reservoir
  • Laplace's law: sphere maximizes volume / surface ratio → low intraluminal pressure at high capacity (P = 2T/r; doubling r quadruples volume while halving pressure)[5]
  • Urethral anastomosis: most dependent point of the W → membranous urethra; voiding through intact external sphincter
  • Ureteral reimplantation: originally Le Duc-Camey direct mucosal-to-mucosal trough; modern modifications include the chimney afferent limb and Abol-Enein/Ghoneim serous-lined extramural tunnel[3][6][8][7][9]

Hautmann W-configuration neobladder: detubularized ileum folded into a four-limb W, then closed into a low-pressure sphere with ureters at the top and urethra at the most dependent point

Hautmann W-configuration ileal neobladder. (1) 60–70 cm of distal ileum is opened along the antimesenteric border and folded into a four-limb W, the adjacent limb edges joined to form the posterior plate. (2) The plate is closed anteriorly into a near-spherical low-pressure reservoir (Laplace, P = 2T/r): the ureters are reimplanted proximally (Le Duc-Camey trough or chimney) and the most dependent point is anastomosed to the urethra for voiding per urethra. Contrast the Studer design, which keeps a dedicated isoperistaltic afferent limb instead of the W. (Original WARWIKI schematic)

Surgical Technique​

Original (classic) Hautmann[1][5][3]​

  1. Bowel isolation — 60–70 cm distal ileum on mesenteric pedicle; divide proximally and distally
  2. Bowel continuity — ileoileal anastomosis
  3. Detubularization — open along entire antimesenteric border with electrocautery
  4. W-folding — fold into 4-limb W; suture medial edges of adjacent limbs into the posterior plate
  5. Ureteral reimplantation — Le Duc-Camey trough technique into proximal reservoir
  6. Urethral anastomosis — most dependent point of the W → urethral stump with interrupted sutures
  7. Anterior closure — fold lateral edges upward, suture together, completing the sphere
  8. Catheter placement — 20–22 Fr urethral catheter + bilateral ureteral stents

Chimney modification (Hollowell / Steinberg / Lippert-Theodorescu)[6][7]​

Adds an 8–12 cm tubularized isoperistaltic ileal chimney to the proximal end of the W-reservoir; ureters anastomosed end-to-side (Bricker or Wallace).

  • Simplifies ureterointestinal anastomosis
  • Reduces tension on ureteral anastomosis
  • Anterior position of ureters facilitates revision if needed
  • Isoperistaltic segment may reduce reflux
  • Outcomes (n=50): 93% daytime / 86% nighttime continence at 1 yr; ureteral stricture 6%

Modified short-segment Hautmann (40 cm)[10]​

Sevin 2004 — uses only 40 cm ileum to reduce metabolic load:

  • Capacity 550 mL (range 310–720)
  • Max intravesical pressure 26.4 cmH₂O
  • Continence 92% daytime / 90% nighttime at 4 yr
  • Metabolic acidosis 58% (mild–moderate)
  • No electrolyte imbalance observed

Robotic intracorporeal Hautmann[11][12]​

  • Median operative time 320 min (230–500); EBL 300 mL; 90-d complications 45% (high-grade only 10%)
  • Daytime continence 90% at 6 / 12 mo; nighttime 77–80%
  • Mean capacity 329 mL at 6 mo

Piramide 2024 SR of all intracorporeal neobladder techniques (Studer, Hautmann, Y, U, Bordeaux, Pyramid, Shell, FloRIN, Padua) found comparable perioperative outcomes with no evidence favoring one type.[13]

Functional Outcomes — Continence​

SeriesnFUDaytimeNighttimeCIC
Hautmann original (Ulm 1999)36311 yr95.9%95%3.9%
Hautmann 35-yr experience259121 mo (median)90%82%13%
Jensen (Denmark 2006)676.5 yr95% (1 yr)73% (1 yr)—
Soulié (France 2001)5528.8 mo88.5% (1 yr)78.8% (1 yr)5.5%
Hollowell (chimney 2000)504 yr93%86%4%
Lee (chimney, Korea 2016)5136 mo86%69%14%
Zhou (robotic intracorporeal 2020)4014 mo90%80%2.5%
Sevin (modified 40 cm 2004)12410 yr92%90%—
Minervini (W-shaped long-term)64> 5 yr75% pad-free day55% pad-free night12.5%

Key continence observations:

  • Continence improves progressively over the first 12 mo — daytime ~ 60% at 3 mo → ~ 89–96% at 12 mo[15][16]
  • Decreases with age at surgery: 100% daytime in patients < 65 yr decreases progressively in older cohorts[2]
  • Pad-free rate (stricter measure): 71% daytime / 47% nighttime in the 35-yr series[2]
  • > 20-yr follow-up patients had the best functional results — 0% CIC, lowest pad use, no mucus obstruction — suggesting favorable adaptation over decades[2]

Voiding function​

87% void spontaneously and residual-free in the 35-yr series; spontaneous voiding rate 94% at < 65 yr declining with age. Voiding accomplished by Valsalva + pelvic-floor relaxation (the neobladder lacks intrinsic contractile force). Mean voided 371 mL; mean PVR 44 mL; mean Qmax 20.8 mL/s.[2][14]

Urodynamic properties​

ParameterValue
Maximum capacity413–550 mL (original) / 450–480 mL median (Jensen)
Maximum pressure at capacity26.4 cmH₂O (modified) / 30 cmH₂O (original)
ComplianceNormal (> 30 mL/cmH₂O)
Maximum flow rate17.5–25.2 mL/s
Post-void residual43.7 mL (mean)

The double reconfiguration (W-fold) produces larger capacity and lower max pressure than single-fold (U-shaped) neobladders at all time points, with significantly better continence and longer voiding intervals at 12 mo.[18]

Complications​

Early (≤ 90 days)[1]​

Landmark Ulm series (n = 363):

  • Perioperative mortality 3% (11 patients) — has decreased to < 2% in contemporary series
  • Modern early-complication rates 23.6–61% (most Clavien I–II)[15][11][16]

Long-term (1,000-neobladder series)[4]​

ComplicationCumulative incidence (20 yr)
Overall long-term complication40.8%
Hydronephrosis16.9%
Incisional hernia6.4%
Febrile UTI5.7%
Ileus / SBO3.6%
Subneovesical obstruction (total)3.1%
— Local tumor recurrence1.1%
— Neovesicourethral anastomotic stricture1.2%
— Urethral stricture0.9%
Long-term bicarbonate substitution33.3% (307/923)
Severe metabolic acidosis episodes1.2% (n=11)
Vitamin B12 substitution0.2% (n=2)
Chronic diarrhea1.0%
Neobladder-related deaths0.3%
Neobladder-related late reoperation4.4%

Rare but serious: cutaneous neobladder fistula (n=2), intestinal neobladder fistula, iatrogenic perforation, spontaneous perforation, necrotizing pyocystis (1 each).

In the 35-yr series, surgical complication rate was 27% and inversely correlated with functional results (p < 0.05).[2]

Ureteral Anastomosis & Upper-Tract Outcomes​

TechniqueStrictureRefluxNotes
Le Duc-Camey (original)VariableUniversal with full reservoir (Nesbit); reduced with Le Duc-Camey[18]Direct mucosal-to-mucosal trough
Chimney[6]6%Reduced by isoperistaltic limbAnterior position of ureters facilitates revision
Abol-Enein/Ghoneim serous-lined extramural tunnel[8][19]3.7%3% reflux; upper tracts unchanged or improved in 96.2%n = 450
Refluxing (Nesbit) short afferent limb[17][20][21]—RefluxesLong-term > 5 yr (n=64): only 4.8% upper-tract dilation; GFR comparable to age-matched controls. Thoeny 76-pt 84-mo confirmed unidirectional peristalsis of afferent tubular segment sufficiently protects upper tract without formal antireflux mechanism, provided no anastomotic stricture

Renal-function preservation​

  • 35-yr Ulm series — serum creatinine showed only age-related increase; no diversion-related deterioration[2]
  • 10-yr analysis (Jin 2012) — obstruction is the leading independent risk factor for renal-function deterioration, not diversion type or reflux[22]
  • USC-STAR RCT confirmed antireflux mechanisms did not prevent renal-function decline at 3 yr and increased diversion-related secondary surgeries[23]

Metabolic Consequences​

Inherent to all ileal neobladders:[2][4][24][25]

Hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis​

  • Incidence: 52% at 1 mo, decreasing to 19.5% at 1 yr and 7.3% at 2 yr[24]
  • 1,000-neobladder series — 33.3% (307/923) required long-term bicarbonate substitution[4]
  • 35-yr series — bicarbonate use decreased from 51% at 5 yr → 19% at 25 yr (mucosal adaptation)[2]
  • Risk factors: impaired renal function (OR 3.87 at 1 mo), diabetes (OR 5.68 at 1 yr), older age[24]
  • Improved continence is an independent risk factor for acidosis — as continence improves (longer urine contact time), monitor acid-base more frequently[25]

Vitamin B12 deficiency​

  • Only 2/923 (0.2%) required B12 substitution in the Ulm series[4]
  • Studer series (n=482) — 5% received B12 substitution[26]
  • Low rate reflects preservation of the terminal ileum (the primary B12 absorption site)

Bone health​

Studer 20-yr series — incidence of osteoporosis at 10 yr resembled that of the normal population.[26]

For pharmacologic management see Vitamin B12 supplementation, Urinary acidifiers & alkalinizers, and Mucus management.

Hautmann Neobladder in Women​

Applied to women since 1986 but female-specific challenges are significant:[27][28][29][30][31]

  • Daytime continence 83–88%; nighttime 50–70%
  • Hypercontinence (inability to empty, requiring CIC): 27–70% — the defining female-specific challenge
  • Hautmann's own 9-yr experience with 18 women: 70% eventually required CIC — concluded women should accept "70% risk of CIC in the long term"[30]
  • Bahlburg 2023 large prospective German cohort (n=38 women) — social continence 64% at 1 yr; 44% reported severe incontinence; male sex independent predictor of pad-free status (OR 4.1)[31]

Mechanisms of female voiding dysfunction​

  • Urethral angulation (kinking) from posterior descent of the neobladder into the pelvis[32]
  • Loss of posterior vaginal-wall support
  • Neobladder-vaginal fistula 3–6%[8][29]

QoL in women​

  • Long-term SF-12 not significantly different from general population; 77% rated health good–excellent[28]
  • Nighttime incontinence had a greater negative QoL impact than hypercontinence[33]
  • At 6 mo, neobladder showed higher physical and role functioning than ileal conduit in women[34]

Hautmann vs Studer — Head-to-Head​

Lee 2003 (n=130; 93 Studer / 37 Hautmann):[35]

ParameterHautmannStuderp
Operative time5.3 hr5.9 hr0.003
LOS7.0 d8.3 d0.02
EBLSimilarSimilarNS
Daytime continence67%67%NS
Nighttime continence47%40%NS
Complication rateSimilarSimilarNS
Reoperation rateSimilarSimilarNS

Hautmann was significantly faster (likely simpler ureteral anastomosis in the original technique) and shorter LOS. Continence equivalent. Piramide 2024 SR of all robotic intracorporeal neobladder techniques confirmed no technique has demonstrated superiority over others.[35][13]

Key technical differences​

  • Hautmann: W-shaped, 60–70 cm ileum, ureters reimplanted directly into the reservoir (or via chimney); no dedicated afferent limb in the original design
  • Studer: 54–60 cm ileum with dedicated 20 cm isoperistaltic afferent ileal limb; reservoir is U-shaped (cross-folded)
  • Both achieve comparable urodynamic properties, continence, and renal function[26][35][13]

Long-Term Survival[4]​

From the 1,000-neobladder series:

  • OS 65.5% at 5 yr / 49.8% at 10 yr / 28.3% at 20 yr
  • Survival primarily determined by oncologic factors (tumor stage, lymph-node status), not diversion type
  • Neobladder-related mortality only 3/923 (0.3%) — confirming procedure safety

Long-Term Surveillance​

Lifelong monitoring:[2][4][36]

  • Renal function — eGFR; nuclear GFR if creatinine unreliable; serum creatinine showed only age-related increases at 35 yr
  • Metabolic — bicarbonate, chloride, blood gases (most frequent in first year when acidosis risk highest); frequency decreases over time
  • Vitamin B12 — annual; clinical deficiency rare with Hautmann technique
  • Upper-tract imaging — ultrasound or CT for hydronephrosis (cumulative 16.9% at 20 yr)
  • Voiding assessment — urinary retention, CIC needs, mucus obstruction
  • Urethral surveillance — urethral recurrence 5% in Studer series; regular urethral wash cytology recommended[26]
  • Bone density — consider in patients on long-term bicarbonate

Summary — Strengths and Limitations​

Strengths​

  • Largest and longest single-center experience of any neobladder (> 1,000 patients, > 35 yr)[2][4]
  • Excellent long-term continence (90% daytime / 82% nighttime in tumor-free patients)[2]
  • Functional results improve over decades — > 20-yr FU patients had the best outcomes[2]
  • Low neobladder-related mortality (0.3%)[4]
  • Adaptable to robotic intracorporeal construction[11][13][12]
  • Shorter operative time than Studer in direct comparison[35]

Limitations​

  • High hypercontinence / CIC rate in women (up to 70% long-term)[30]
  • Nighttime incontinence persistent (18–53% depending on definition)[16][2]
  • 33% require long-term bicarbonate[4]
  • Cumulative long-term complication rate 40.8% at 20 yr[4]
  • Requires patient motivation, adequate renal function, intact urethral sphincter
  • Not suitable for positive urethral margins, prior urethral disease, or poor manual dexterity

See Also​

References​

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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.

7. Lippert MC, Theodorescu D. "The Hautmann neobladder with a chimney: a versatile modification." J Urol. 1997;158(4):1510–1512.

8. Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. "Functional results of orthotopic ileal neobladder with serous-lined extramural ureteral reimplantation: experience with 450 patients." J Urol. 2001;165(5):1427–1432.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Hussein AA, Ahmed YE, Kozlowski JD, et al. "Robot-assisted approach to 'W'-configuration urinary diversion: a step-by-step technique." BJU Int. 2017;120(1):152–157. doi:10.1111/bju.13824

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. 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

15. 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

16. Jensen JB, Lundbeck F, Jensen KM. "Complications and neobladder function of the Hautmann orthotopic ileal neobladder." BJU Int. 2006;98(6):1289–1294. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06449.x

17. 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

18. 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

19. Türkölmez K, Baltaci S, Göğüş C, Bedük Y, Göğüş O. "Results of the ureteral reimplantation with serous-lined extramural tunnel in orthotopic ileal W-neobladder." Int J Urol. 2004;11(6):368–373. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2004.00807.x

20. Minervini A, Boni G, Salinitri G, Mariani G, Minervini R. "Evaluation of renal function and upper urinary tract morphology in the ileal orthotopic neobladder with no antireflux mechanism." J Urol. 2005;173(1):144–147. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000146718.15786.e8

21. Thoeny HC, Sonnenschein MJ, Madersbacher S, Vock P, Studer UE. "Is ileal orthotopic bladder substitution with an afferent tubular segment detrimental to the upper urinary tract in the long term?" J Urol. 2002;168(5):2030–2034. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64289-9

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Rouanne M, Legrand G, Neuzillet Y, et al. "Long-term women-reported quality of life after radical cystectomy and orthotopic ileal neobladder reconstruction." Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(4):1398–1404. doi:10.1245/s10434-013-3458-8

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Zahran MH, El-Hefnawy AS, Zidan EM, et al. "Health-related quality of life after radical cystectomy and neobladder reconstruction in women: impact of voiding and continence status." Int J Urol. 2014;21(9):887–892. doi:10.1111/iju.12452

34. Siracusano S, Zaka A, Bassi P, et al. "Quality-of-life outcomes in female patients with ileal conduit or orthotopic neobladder urinary diversion: 6-month results of a multicenter prospective study." Front Oncol. 2022;12:855546. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.855546

35. 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

36. Lenis AT, Lec PM, Chamie K, Mshs MD. "Bladder cancer: a review." JAMA. 2020;324(19):1980–1991. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17598