The Journal of Practical Medicine >
Clinical efficacy comparison of ileal conduit, flap embedding method, and traditional cutaneous ureterostomy in patients with bladder cancer
Received date: 2025-02-08
Online published: 2025-05-21
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of different urinary diversions, specifically exploring whether the flap embedding technique can improve bladder cancer patients' quality of life and reduce the incidence of related complications. Methods 63 bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy with urinary diversion, between December 2022 and December 2023, were divided into three groups: Ileal conduit group (n = 21), flap embedding technique group (n = 21), and traditional cutaneous ureterostomy group (n = 21). General clinical data, surgical data, preoperative and postoperative renal function indicators, incidence of complications within 6 months postoperatively, and quality of life scores were compared among the groups. Results The operative time in the ileal conduit group was longer than that in the other two groups (P < 0.05). The quality of life scores in the flap embedding technique group were superior to those in the traditional cutaneous ureterostomy group (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found compared to the ileal conduit group (P > 0.05). In terms of postoperative complications, the incidence of intestinal obstruction in the flap embedding technique group was lower than that in the ileal conduit group (P < 0.05), and the rate of reinsertion of a single-J stent for hydronephrosis in the flap embedding technique group was lower than that in the traditional cutaneous ureterostomy group (P < 0.05). Postoperative serum creatinine levels in the traditional cutaneous ureterostomy group were significantly higher than preoperative levels (P < 0.05), while no significant differences in renal function indicators were observed in the other two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The flap embedding technique significantly improves patients' quality of life and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications. It is worthy of further promotion in clinical practice.
Xufeng YU , Meimian HUA , Shuxiong ZENG , Wei HE , Ziwei WANG , Qing CHEN , Chen ZHANG , Yue WANG , Yi WANG , Chuanliang. XU . Clinical efficacy comparison of ileal conduit, flap embedding method, and traditional cutaneous ureterostomy in patients with bladder cancer[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2025 , 41(10) : 1517 -1524 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.10.013
| 1 | 张娅威,施鸿金,付什,等. TIGIT的生物学作用及其在膀胱癌中应用的研究进展[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2024, 40(12): 1762-1766. |
| 2 | SIEGEL R L, KRATZER T B, GIAQUINTO A N, et al. Cancer statistics, 2025[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2025, 75(1): 10-45. doi:10.3322/caac.21871 |
| 3 | LOPEZ-BELTRAN A, COOKSON M S, GUERCIO B J, et al. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer[J]. BMJ, 2024, 384: e076743. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076743 |
| 4 | 肖峰, 姜锡男, 舒露,等. ECM1基因在膀胱癌中的表达及其与临床病理特征及预后关系[J].实用医学杂志,2023, 39(20): 2629-2632. |
| 5 | LENIS A T, LEC P M, CHAMIE K. Urinary Diversion[J]. JAMA, 2020, 324(21): 2222. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17604 |
| 6 | SASAKI Y, YAMAMOTO Y, FUKUTA K, et al. Cutaneous ureterostomy following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: A multicenter comparative study of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal techniques[J]. World J Urol, 2024, 42(1): 591. doi:10.1007/s00345-024-05300-x |
| 7 | FLORES-MIRELES A L, WALKER J N, CAPARON M, et al. Urinary tract infections: Epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2015, 13(5): 269-284. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3432 |
| 8 | LIU Z, TIAN Q, XIA S, et al. Evaluation of the improved tubeless cutaneous ureterostomy technique following radical cystectomy in cases of invasive bladder cancer complicated by peritoneal metastasis[J]. Oncol Lett, 2016, 11(2): 1401-1405. doi:10.3892/ol.2015.4045 |
| 9 | 于徐锋, 花梅免, 曾蜀雄, 等. 输尿管皮肤造口术-皮瓣嵌入法用于根治性膀胱切除术+尿流改道术10例效果初探[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2024, 29(12): 1099-1103. |
| 10 | TSAI A P Y, HUR S A, WONG A, et al. Minimum important difference of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS in fibrotic interstitial lung disease[J]. Thorax, 2021, 76(1): 37-43. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214944 |
| 11 | MORTENSEN C B, ANDERSEN-RANBERG N C, POULSEN L M, et al. Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2024, 50(1): 103-113. doi:10.1007/s00134-023-07282-7 |
| 12 | 杜市,邬丹,陈静. 我国老年人健康素养与健康相关生命质量的相关性分析[J].现代预防医学,2025,52(4):709?715. |
| 13 | VAN HOUT B A, SHAW J W. Mapping EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L[J]. Value Health, 2021, 24(9): 1285-1293. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.03.009 |
| 14 | METZEMAEKERS J, BOUWMAN L, DE VOS M, et al. Clavien-Dindo, comprehensive complication index and classification of intraoperative adverse events: A uniform and holistic approach in adverse event registration for (deep) endometriosis surgery[J]. Hum Reprod Open, 2023, 2023(2): hoad019. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoad019 |
| 15 | 中华医学遗传学杂志. 关于统计学检验结论在文章中表达的要求[J].中华医学遗传学杂志,2016, 33(4): 457. |
| 16 | CORFIELD J M, ABOUASSALY R, LAWRENTSCHUK N. Health information quality on the internet for bladder cancer and urinary diversion: A multi-lingual analysis[J]. Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2018, 70(2): 137-143. doi:10.23736/s0393-2249.17.02952-6 |
| 17 | SONPAVDE G P, MOUW K W, MOSSANEN M. Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: Controversies and Dilemmas[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2022, 40(12): 1275-1280. doi:10.1200/jco.21.02928 |
| 18 | KORKES F, PALOU J. High mortality rates after radical cystectomy: We must have acceptable protocols and consider the rationale of cutaneous ureterostomy for high-risk patients[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2019, 45(6): 1090-1093. doi:10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.06.03 |
| 19 | BURKHARD F C, WUETHRICH P Y. Cutaneous ureterostomy: 'Back to the future'[J]. BJU Int, 2016, 118(4): 493-494. doi:10.1111/bju.13532 |
| 20 | KORKES F, FERNANDES E, GUSHIKEN F A, et al. Bricker ileal conduit vs. Cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A systematic review[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2022, 48(1): 18-30. doi:10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.0892 |
| 21 | LIU Y, ZHANG J, CHEN H, et al. Urinary microbiota signatures associated with different types of urinary diversion: A comparative study[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2023, 13: 1302870. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1302870 |
| 22 | MOEEN A M, FARAGALLAH M A, ZARZOUR M A, et al. Ileal conduit versus single stoma uretero-cutanoustomy after radical cystectomy in patients?≥?75 years; which technique is better? A prospective randomized comparative study[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2023, 55(7): 1719-1726. doi:10.1007/s11255-023-03609-x |
| 23 | KADORIKU F, SASAKI Y, FUKUTA K, et al. A propensity score matching study on robot-assisted radical cystectomy for older patients: Comparison of intracorporeal ileal conduit and cutaneous ureterostomy[J]. BMC Urol, 2022, 22(1): 174. doi:10.1186/s12894-022-01123-3 |
| 24 | LONGO N, IMBIMBO C, FUSCO F, et al. Complications and quality of life in elderly patients with several comorbidities undergoing cutaneous ureterostomy with single stoma or ileal conduit after radical cystectomy[J]. BJU Int, 2016, 118(4): 521-526. doi:10.1111/bju.13462 |
| 25 | TSATURYAN A, SAHAKYAN S, MURADYAN A, et al. A new modification of tubeless cutaneous ureterostomy following radical cystectomy[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2019, 51(6): 959-967. doi:10.1007/s11255-019-02145-x |
| 26 | AY A A, KUTUN S, ULUCANLAR H, et al. Risk factors for postoperative ileus[J]. J Korean Surg Soc, 2011, 81(4): 242-249. doi:10.4174/jkss.2011.81.4.242 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |