Skip to main content

Ileal Conduit

The ileal conduit is the most commonly performed urinary diversion following radical cystectomy, used in > 80% of patients undergoing bladder removal.[1] It is an incontinent diversion in which a 15–20 cm segment of distal ileum serves as a passive conduit from the ureters to an external collection device via an abdominal stoma.[2] The conduit does not store urine — it functions purely as a passageway.

Popularized by Eugene Bricker after World War II, it became the standard of care for incontinent urinary diversion in the 1950s once effective adhesive stoma appliances became available, and has remained the most frequently performed urinary diversion worldwide for > 70 years.[3][4]

Indications​

The ileal conduit is the preferred diversion in:[5][2][6]

  • Muscle-invasive bladder cancer requiring radical cystectomy (most common indication)
  • Elderly patients or those with significant comorbidities (high ASA class)
  • Patients with limited manual dexterity or poor motivation for self-catheterization
  • Impaired renal function (serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL) — continent diversions contraindicated by metabolic-reabsorption load
  • Prior pelvic radiation or anatomical restrictions precluding neobladder
  • Refractory neurogenic bladder as salvage diversion (e.g., end-stage MS-related lower-tract dysfunction)[7]

Contraindications to bowel-based diversions generally include inflammatory bowel disease, short-bowel syndrome, significant hepatic dysfunction, and azotemia.[8]

Surgical Technique​

Key steps​

  1. Isolation of a 15–20 cm distal ileal segment with preservation of mesenteric blood supply
  2. Restoration of bowel continuity (ileoileal anastomosis)
  3. Ureteroileal anastomosis (Bricker or Wallace — see below)
  4. Stoma maturation through the abdominal wall, typically right lower quadrant — see Stoma Site Marking for the preoperative WOC-nurse marking workflow that drives long-term stomal outcomes

Ureteroileal anastomosis — Bricker vs Wallace​

TechniqueDescriptionStricture ratePractical considerations
BrickerEach ureter anastomosed separately end-to-side to the proximal ileum3.7%[12]Preferred when ureteral lengths are disparate (e.g., obesity); slightly longer operative time
WallaceUreters spatulated and joined together, then anastomosed as a single unit to the ileum0%[12]Shorter operative time; higher risk of bilateral stricture when stricture occurs[11]

Bricker versus Wallace ureteroenteric anastomosis to an ileal conduit

The two ureteroenteric anastomoses. In the Bricker technique each ureter is implanted separately, end-to-side, into the closed proximal end of the ileal conduit — preferred when the ureters are of unequal length. In the Wallace technique the ureters are spatulated and their medial edges sewn together into a single plate, then anastomosed as one unit to the open conduit end; the wider single anastomosis lowers stricture risk but means a stricture, when it occurs, can threaten both renal units. (Original WARWIKI schematic)

A single-surgeon BMI-matched series found 0% stricture with Wallace vs 3.7% with Bricker (p = 0.015).[12] Other studies have shown comparable or reversed results depending on patient factors.[9][10][11] Robotic-assisted intracorporeal diversion data show similar perioperative outcomes between the two techniques.[13]

Distal ureteral resection length — "shorter ureters, fewer strictures"​

A counter-intuitive but consequential modern principle. Das 2024 showed that longer distal ureteral resection (leaving shorter remaining ureters) is associated with significantly fewer uretero-enteric anastomotic strictures (UEAS) — OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.58–0.92), with median resection 2.3 cm vs 1.65 cm in non-stricturing vs stricturing anastomoses (p = 0.028).[25]

Mechanism. The distal ureter — particularly the segment closest to the bladder — has the most tenuous blood supply. Generous distal resection discards the devascularized tip and leaves a healthier, better-perfused ureteral end at the anastomosis.[25]

Conflicting evidence. An earlier Richards 2015 series did not find a stricture-length relationship and instead identified Clavien ≥ III complications and urine leak as the dominant risk factors — UEAS is multifactorial.[26]

Operative implication. When tension allows, resect generously back to obviously well-perfused, pink, bleeding ureter rather than economize on length to preserve the most distal segment. This pairs with intraoperative ICG / SPY fluorescence-angiography assessment (Yeaman 2024) as a perfusion-driven approach to UEAS prevention.

Core technical principles (irrespective of technique)​

  • Spatulate the distal end of each ureter to widen the anastomotic lumen.[3][10]
  • Minimize periureteral dissection — preserve adventitial blood supply; never strip the ureter.[27]
  • Tension-free mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis with fine absorbable suture (4-0 or 5-0 polyglactin), running or interrupted.[3][10]
  • Stent every anastomosis — single-J stents through the conduit into the renal pelvis, removed at 10–14 days postoperatively.[3]

Complications​

Complications are common and accumulate with time. In long-term survivors (> 5 yr), 66% develop at least one conduit-related complication, rising to 94% in those surviving > 15 yr.[14]

Early (within 90 days)[3]​

  • Urine leak / urinoma
  • Urinary obstruction
  • Postoperative fluid collections (hematoma, lymphocele, abscess)
  • Fistula formation
  • Wound infection (up to 20%)

Late[3][14][15]​

ComplicationRate
Ureteroileal anastomotic stricture5–14%
Stomal stenosis5–24%
Renal function deterioration20–27%
Urolithiasis9–15% (38% after 15 yr)
Symptomatic UTI / pyelonephritis23%
Bowel complications20–24%
Ureteroarterial fistulaRare but life-threatening

Mayo Clinic series (Shimko 2011, n = 1,057): 60.8% experienced diversion-related complications, mean 2.3 complications/patient. Distribution: bowel 20.3%, renal 20.2%, infectious 16.5%, stomal 15.4%, urolithiasis 15.3%.[15]

Metabolic Consequences​

Intestinal diversions cause characteristic metabolic derangements:[1][16]

  • Hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis from ammonium chloride absorption and bicarbonate wasting — may require oral bicarbonate supplementation
  • Vitamin B12 deficiency from loss of terminal-ileum absorptive surface — annual B12 monitoring recommended
  • Metabolic abnormalities reported in ~21% of ileal-conduit patients

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

Quality of Life — vs Other Diversions​

The ileal-conduit-vs-neobladder QoL comparison is nuanced:

  • Meta-analyses generally show marginally better QoL with neobladder for physical / role / social functioning and global health, but neobladder patients experience more urinary symptoms (incontinence, need for self-cath).[17][18][19]
  • When matched for age and comorbidities, global health is often similar; ileal-conduit patients report better long-term urinary function.[19][20][21]
  • In women, no significant QoL difference between IC and neobladder.[22]
  • Patient satisfaction is high — 85% would choose the same diversion again; in elderly patients, QoL may actually improve after IC diversion.[23][5]

Comparison with other diversions​

FeatureIleal ConduitOrthotopic NeobladderContinent Cutaneous (Indiana Pouch)
ContinenceIncontinent (external pouch)Continent (voids per urethra)Continent (self-catheterizes)
Technical complexitySimplestMost complexIntermediate
Reoperation rateLowestHigherHigher
Late-complication rate~ 39%~ 59–60%~ 63%
Renal-function declineLeastMoreMore
QoL (global)GoodMarginally betterSimilar
Long-term urinary functionBetterWorse (incontinence)Better
Ideal candidateElderly, comorbid, poor dexterityYounger, motivated, good renal functionMotivated, good dexterity

Long-Term Surveillance​

Lifelong surveillance is essential given the high cumulative complication burden:[14][24]

  • Renal function (serum creatinine, eGFR)
  • Upper-tract imaging for hydronephrosis and urolithiasis
  • Annual serum vitamin B12
  • Metabolic panel for acidosis
  • Stoma assessment by wound / ostomy nurse
  • Cancer surveillance per primary-disease protocol

> 16% of patients experience renal failure or impairment after urinary diversion; ureteral obstruction is more common after IC than continent diversions.[24] The surveillance burden is comparable to cancer follow-up itself.

See Also​

References​

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

2. Khosla AA, Mendhiratta N, Jatwani K. "Urinary diversion after cystectomy for bladder cancer." JAMA Oncol. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.3644

3. Kobayashi K, Goel A, Coelho MP, et al. "Complications of ileal conduits after radical cystectomy: interventional radiologic management." Radiographics. 2021;41(1):249–267. doi:10.1148/rg.2021200067

4. Omar K, Khan NS, Shariat SF, et al. "Urinary diversion." In: Blandy's Urology, 3rd Edition. 2019;Chapter 22. ISBN: 9781118863374.

5. Siddiqui KM, Izawa JI. "Ileal conduit: standard urinary diversion for elderly patients undergoing radical cystectomy." World J Urol. 2016;34(1):19–24. doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1706-1

6. Lowrance WT, Rumohr JA, Clark PE, et al. "Urinary diversion trends at a high-volume single American tertiary care center." J Urol. 2009;182(5):2369–2374. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.026

7. Chkir S, Michel F, Akakpo W, et al. "Non-continent urinary diversion (ileal conduit) as salvage therapy in patients with refractory lower urinary tract dysfunctions due to multiple sclerosis." Urology. 2022;168:216–221. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.014

8. de'Angelis N, Schena CA, Marchegiani F, et al. "2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery." World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18(1):45. doi:10.1186/s13017-023-00513-8

9. Kouba E, Sands M, Lentz A, Wallen E, Pruthi RS. "A comparison of the Bricker versus Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis in patients undergoing urinary diversion for bladder cancer." J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):945–948. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.030

10. Liu L, Chen M, Li Y, et al. "Technique selection of Bricker or Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis in ileal conduit urinary diversion: a strategy based on patient characteristics." Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(8):2808–2812. doi:10.1245/s10434-014-3591-z

11. Krafft U, Mahmoud O, Hess J, et al. "Comparative analysis of Bricker versus Wallace ureteroenteric anastomosis and identification of predictors for postoperative ureteroenteric stricture." Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407(3):1233–1240. doi:10.1007/s00423-021-02413-4

12. Ren C, Xiao M, Zhu J, Tong W, Yi F. "Comparative analysis of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture rates: Bricker versus Wallace techniques in ileal conduit urinary diversion — a single-surgeon study with BMI-matched design and long-term follow-up." Front Oncol. 2025;15:1613772. doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1613772

13. Carreno GL, Fu H, Messer J. "Comparison of perioperative outcomes between Bricker and Wallace anastomosis techniques in robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal diversion." World J Urol. 2025;43(1):415. doi:10.1007/s00345-025-05781-4

14. Madersbacher S, Schmidt J, Eberle JM, et al. "Long-term outcome of ileal conduit diversion." J Urol. 2003;169(3):985–990. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000051462.45388.14

15. Shimko MS, Tollefson MK, Umbreit EC, et al. "Long-term complications of conduit urinary diversion." J Urol. 2011;185(2):562–567. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.096

16. Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, Bex A, et al. "Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions." Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):834–842. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.008

17. Shi H, Yu H, Bellmunt J, et al. "Comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between ileal conduit diversion and orthotopic neobladder based on validated questionnaires: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Qual Life Res. 2018;27(11):2759–2775. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1902-8

18. Cerruto MA, D'Elia C, Siracusano S, et al. "Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-RCTs on health-related quality of life after radical cystectomy using validated questionnaires: better results with orthotopic neobladder versus ileal conduit." Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(3):343–360. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.10.001

19. Cerruto MA, D'Elia C, Siracusano S, et al. "Health-related quality of life after radical cystectomy: a cross-sectional study with matched-pair analysis on ileal conduit vs ileal orthotopic neobladder diversion." Urology. 2017;108:82–89. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.022

20. Kern SQ, Speir RW, Tong Y, et al. "Longitudinal health-related quality of life after open radical cystectomy: comparison of ileal conduit, Indiana pouch, and orthotopic neobladder." Urology. 2021;152:184–189. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.036

21. Gellhaus PT, Cary C, Kaimakliotis HZ, et al. "Long-term health-related quality of life outcomes following radical cystectomy." Urology. 2017;106:82–86. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.03.053

22. Xing W, Zeng S, Xu Z, Xing S, Liu Q. "Comparison of health-related quality of life between ileal conduit diversion and orthotopic neobladder in women: a meta-analysis." Front Oncol. 2022;12:862884. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.862884

23. Dutta SC, Chang SC, Coffey CS, et al. "Health-related quality of life assessment after radical cystectomy: comparison of ileal conduit with continent orthotopic neobladder." J Urol. 2002;168(1):164–167.

24. Gilbert SM, Lai J, Saigal CS, Gore JL. "Downstream complications following urinary diversion." J Urol. 2013;190(3):916–922. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.026

25. Das A, Zeng E, Risk M, et al. Shorter ureters lead to fewer strictures following cystectomy and urinary diversion. Urology. 2024;184:272-277. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.12.005

26. Richards KA, Cohn JA, Large MC, et al. The effect of length of ureteral resection on benign ureterointestinal stricture rate in ileal conduit or ileal neobladder urinary diversion following radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):65.e1-8. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.05.015

27. Li Y, Zhuang Q, Hu Z, et al. A modified ureteroileal anastomosis technique for Bricker urinary diversion. Urology. 2011;78(5):1191-5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.001