Table of Contents
ISRN Urology
Volume 2013, Article ID 725286, 3 pages
Clinical Study

Dipping Technique for Ureteroileal Anastomosis in Orthotopic Ileal Neobladder: 20-Year Experience in 670 Patients—No Stenosis with Preservation of the Upper Tract

Urology Department, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt

Received 8 April 2013; Accepted 8 May 2013

Academic Editors: R. J. Karnes and J. H. Ku

Copyright © 2013 Mohamed M. Wishahi 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. 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 · View at Scopus
  2. D. A. Elmajjan, J. P. Stein, and D. Esring, “The Koch ileal neobladder. Updated experience in 295 male patients,” Journal of Urology, vol. 157, pp. 920–925, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  3. U. E. Studer, G. A. Casanova, and D. K. Ackerman, “Ileal bladder substitute: antireflux nipple or afferent tubular segment?” European Urology, vol. 143, pp. 398–395, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. U. E. Studer, H. Danuser, W. Hochreiter, J. P. Springer, W. H. Turner, and E. J. Zingg, “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 · View at Scopus
  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 · View at Scopus
  6. 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 · View at Scopus
  7. A. Kritjansson and W. Mansson, “Refluxing or nonrefluxing ureteric anastomosis,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 84, pp. 905–910, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  8. S. Hautmann, K. H. F. Chun, E. Currlin, P. Braun, H. Huland, and K. P. Juenemann, “Refluxing chimney versus nonrefluxing LeDuc ureteroileal anastomosis for orthotopic ileal neobladder: a comparative analysis for patients with bladder cancer,” Journal of Urology, vol. 175, no. 4, pp. 1389–1393, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus