Table of Contents
ISRN Urology
Volume 2011, Article ID 431951, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/431951
Clinical Study

A Novel Antireflux Technique for Orthotopic Ileal Bladder Substitutes—Flat-Segment Technique: Preliminary Results

Urology Department, Kasr Al Aini Hospitals, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Received 20 June 2011; Accepted 11 July 2011

Academic Editors: P.-L. Chang and C. E. Constantinou

Copyright © 2011 Hany ElFayoumy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. A. Libertino and U. E. Studer, “Continent urinary diversions and neobladders in urologic surgery,” in Proceedings of the 95th AUA Annual Meeting, Instructional Course, New Orleans, La, USA, 1997.
  2. A. Stenzl, “Bladder substitution,” Current Opinion in Urology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 241–245, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. A. Le Duc, M. Camey, and P. Teillac, “Antireflux uretero-ileal implantation via a mucosal sulcus,” Annales d'Urologie, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 33–34, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  4. A. A. Shaaban, M. A. Gaballah, T. A. El-Diasty, M. A. Ghoneim, A. I. Sagalowsky, and D. G. Skinner, “Urethral controlled bladder substitution: a comparison between the intussuscepted nipple valve and the technique of Le Duc as antireflux procedures,” Journal of Urology, vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 1156–1161, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  5. H. Abol-Enein and M. A. Ghoneim, “Further clinical experience with the ileal W-neobladder and a serous-lined extramural tunnel for orthotopic substitution,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 558–564, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  6. I. Papadopoulos and K. Weichert-Jacobsen, “Experiences with the entero-ureteral anastomosis via the extramural serous-lined tunnel: procedure of abol-enein,” Urology, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 234–238, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. Y. Osman, H. Abol-Enein, A. Nabeeh, M. Gaballah, and M. Bazeed, “long-term results of a prospective randomized study comparing two different antireflux techniques in orthotopic bladder substitution,” European Urology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 82–86, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. A. R. Stone and J. P. A. MacDermott, “The split-cuff urteral nipple reimplantation technique: reliable reflux prevention from bowel segments,” Journal of Urology, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 707–709, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  9. A. I. Sagalowsky, “Further experience with split-cuff nipple ureteral reimplantation in urinary diversion,” Journal of Urology, vol. 159, no. 6, pp. 1843–1844, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  10. A. Starr, D. H. Rose, and J. F. Cooper, “Antireflux ureteroileal anastomoses in humans,” Journal of Urology, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 170–174, 1975. View at Google Scholar
  11. H. Itatani and T. Sonoda, “New technique of antireflux ureteroileal anastomosis and its clinical experiences,” Journal of Urology, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 735–739, 1978. View at Google Scholar
  12. W. Hirdes, I. Hoekstra, and H. P. Vlietstra, “Hammock anastomosis: a nonrefluxing ureteroilial anastomosis,” Journal of Urology, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 517–518, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  13. D. A. Elmajian, J. P. Stein, D. Esrig et al., “The Kock ileal neobladder: updated experience in 295 male patients,” Journal of Urology, vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 920–925, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  14. A. Benchekroun, “Hydraulic valve for continence and antireflux: a 17-year experience of 210 cases,” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, Supplement, vol. 142, pp. 66–70, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  15. U. E. Studer, G. A. Casanova, and D. K. Ackermann, “Ileal bladder substitute: antireflux nipple or afferent tubular segment,” Journal of Urology, vol. 143, p. 398A, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  16. U. E. Studer, H. Danuser, and W. Hochreiter, “Summary of 10 years experience with an ileal low-pressure bladder substitute combined with an afferent tubular isoperistaltic segment,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29–39, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  17. M. Courteny, P. Hollwell, and P. Orthur, “Technique of Hautmann ileal neobladder with chimney modification: results in 50 patients,” Journal of Urology, vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 47–51, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  18. A. Elbakry, “Wall-incorporated antireflux valve in ileal bladder substitutes: first clinical experience in 17 patients,” Urology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1020–1025, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. J. P. Stein, M. D. Dunn, M. L. Quek et al., “The orthotopic T pouch ileal neobladder: experience with 209 patients,” Journal of Urology, vol. 172, no. 2, pp. 584–587, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  20. J. P. Stein and D. G. Skinner, “Orthotopic urinary diversion,” in Campbell's Urology, P. C. Walsh, A. B. Retik, and E. D. Vaughan, Eds., pp. 3835–3867, Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 8th edition, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  21. M. Gotoh, Y. Yoshikawa, M. Sahashi et al., “Urodynamic study of storage and evacuation of urine in patients with a urethral Kock pouch,” Journal of Urology, vol. 154, no. 5, pp. 1850–1853, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. A. A. Shaaban, M. A. Gaballah, T. A. El-Diasty, M. A. Ghoneim, A. I. Sagalowsky, and D. G. Skinner, “Urethral controlled bladder substitution: a comparison between the intussuscepted nipple valve and the technique of Le Duc as antireflux procedures,” Journal of Urology, vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 1156–1161, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  23. U. E. Studer, H. Danuser, and G. N. Thalmann, “Antireflux nipples or afferent tubular segments in 70 patients with ileal low pressure bladder substitutes: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial,” Journal of Urology, vol. 156, no. 6, pp. 1913–1917, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. K. Steven and A. L. Poulsen, “The orthotopic Kock ileal neobladder: functional results, urodynamic features, complications and survival in 166 men,” Journal of Urology, vol. 164, no. 2, pp. 288–295, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  25. A. J. Pantuck, K. Han, M. Perrotti, R. E. Weiss, and K. B. Cummings, “Ureteroenteric anastomosis in continent urinary diversion: long-term results and complications of direct versus nonrefluxing techniques,” Journal of Urology, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 450–455, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  26. A. Kristjansson and W. Mansson, “Refluxing or nonrefluxing ureteric anastomosis,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 905–910, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar