A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents

Abstract Objectives This study compares postoperative outcomes of radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal conduit urinary diversion (ICUD) using paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J ureteral stents. Materials and Methods Patients underwent RC with ICUD for bladder cancer between 2011 and 2018. Prospe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jonathan T. Ryan, Tarek Ajami, Adam Williams, Dinno Mendiola, Bruno Nahar, Sanoj Punnen, Chad R. Ritch, Dipen J. Parekh, Mark L. Gonzalgo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-05-01
Series:BJUI Compass
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70032
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849762025348005888
author Jonathan T. Ryan
Tarek Ajami
Adam Williams
Dinno Mendiola
Bruno Nahar
Sanoj Punnen
Chad R. Ritch
Dipen J. Parekh
Mark L. Gonzalgo
author_facet Jonathan T. Ryan
Tarek Ajami
Adam Williams
Dinno Mendiola
Bruno Nahar
Sanoj Punnen
Chad R. Ritch
Dipen J. Parekh
Mark L. Gonzalgo
author_sort Jonathan T. Ryan
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objectives This study compares postoperative outcomes of radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal conduit urinary diversion (ICUD) using paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J ureteral stents. Materials and Methods Patients underwent RC with ICUD for bladder cancer between 2011 and 2018. Prospective preoperative clinical, operative and postoperative data were collected. Postoperative complications including stricture, urine leak, urinary tract infection (UTI) and ileus were compared between patients who received 5‐Fr paediatric feeding tubes or 7‐Fr single‐J ureteral stents during surgery. Results Two hundred thirty‐four patients underwent RC with ICUD including 26 with paediatric feeding tubes and 208 with single‐J ureteral stents; 41% had robotic cystectomy, with 36% of these undergoing intracorporeal ICUD. Both groups were comparable in age, gender, kidney function and comorbidities. No significant differences were observed between groups for rates of ileus (20% vs. 34%, p = 0.14), urine leak (4% vs. 10%, p = 0.3), uretero‐ileal stricture (16% vs. 18%, p = 0.7) or overall urinary complications (20% vs. 37%, p = 0.12), except for a lower UTI rate in the feeding tube group (4% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). Median hospital stay was shorter in the feeding tube group (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.015) with similar readmission rates compared to the stent group (p = 0.96). Conclusions Using 5‐Fr feeding tubes for ureteral stenting during RC with ICUD is a safe alternative to 7‐Fr single‐J stents, especially for patients with small ureters or delicate anatomy. Stent type showed no significant impact on postoperative urinary complications except for a lower UTI rate with feeding tubes, suggesting comparable overall outcomes between the two stent types.
format Article
id doaj-art-7ad1a0ff5e6d45bdaf20dcdb18a2c2a2
institution DOAJ
issn 2688-4526
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series BJUI Compass
spelling doaj-art-7ad1a0ff5e6d45bdaf20dcdb18a2c2a22025-08-20T03:05:50ZengWileyBJUI Compass2688-45262025-05-0165n/an/a10.1002/bco2.70032A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stentsJonathan T. Ryan0Tarek Ajami1Adam Williams2Dinno Mendiola3Bruno Nahar4Sanoj Punnen5Chad R. Ritch6Dipen J. Parekh7Mark L. Gonzalgo8Desai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USADesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Miami Florida USAAbstract Objectives This study compares postoperative outcomes of radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal conduit urinary diversion (ICUD) using paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J ureteral stents. Materials and Methods Patients underwent RC with ICUD for bladder cancer between 2011 and 2018. Prospective preoperative clinical, operative and postoperative data were collected. Postoperative complications including stricture, urine leak, urinary tract infection (UTI) and ileus were compared between patients who received 5‐Fr paediatric feeding tubes or 7‐Fr single‐J ureteral stents during surgery. Results Two hundred thirty‐four patients underwent RC with ICUD including 26 with paediatric feeding tubes and 208 with single‐J ureteral stents; 41% had robotic cystectomy, with 36% of these undergoing intracorporeal ICUD. Both groups were comparable in age, gender, kidney function and comorbidities. No significant differences were observed between groups for rates of ileus (20% vs. 34%, p = 0.14), urine leak (4% vs. 10%, p = 0.3), uretero‐ileal stricture (16% vs. 18%, p = 0.7) or overall urinary complications (20% vs. 37%, p = 0.12), except for a lower UTI rate in the feeding tube group (4% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). Median hospital stay was shorter in the feeding tube group (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.015) with similar readmission rates compared to the stent group (p = 0.96). Conclusions Using 5‐Fr feeding tubes for ureteral stenting during RC with ICUD is a safe alternative to 7‐Fr single‐J stents, especially for patients with small ureters or delicate anatomy. Stent type showed no significant impact on postoperative urinary complications except for a lower UTI rate with feeding tubes, suggesting comparable overall outcomes between the two stent types.https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70032bladder cancerileal conduit diversionpaediatric feeding tubespostoperative complicationsradical cystectomysingle‐J stents
spellingShingle Jonathan T. Ryan
Tarek Ajami
Adam Williams
Dinno Mendiola
Bruno Nahar
Sanoj Punnen
Chad R. Ritch
Dipen J. Parekh
Mark L. Gonzalgo
A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
BJUI Compass
bladder cancer
ileal conduit diversion
paediatric feeding tubes
postoperative complications
radical cystectomy
single‐J stents
title A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
title_full A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
title_fullStr A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
title_full_unstemmed A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
title_short A prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: Paediatric feeding tubes versus single‐J stents
title_sort prospective analysis of ureteral stenting during radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion paediatric feeding tubes versus single j stents
topic bladder cancer
ileal conduit diversion
paediatric feeding tubes
postoperative complications
radical cystectomy
single‐J stents
url https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70032
work_keys_str_mv AT jonathantryan aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT tarekajami aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT adamwilliams aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT dinnomendiola aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT brunonahar aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT sanojpunnen aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT chadrritch aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT dipenjparekh aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT marklgonzalgo aprospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT jonathantryan prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT tarekajami prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT adamwilliams prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT dinnomendiola prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT brunonahar prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT sanojpunnen prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT chadrritch prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT dipenjparekh prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents
AT marklgonzalgo prospectiveanalysisofureteralstentingduringradicalcystectomyandilealconduiturinarydiversionpaediatricfeedingtubesversussinglejstents