Double barrelled uro-colostomy versus Ileal conduit for urinary diversion following pelvic exenteration: a single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION

The ideal method for urinary diversion following total pelvic exenteration (TPE) remains unclear. This study compares the outcomes of double-barrelled uro-colostomy (DBUC) and ileal conduit (IC) in a single Australian centre.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration with the formation of either a DBUC or an IC between 2008 and November 2022 were identified from the prospective database from the Royal Adelaide Hospital and St. Andrews Hospital. Demographic, operative characteristics, general perioperative, long-term urological and other relevant surgical complications were compared via univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of 135 patients undergoing exenteration, 39 patients were eligible for inclusion: 16 patients with a DBUC, and 23 patients with an IC. More patients in the DBUC group had previous radiotherapy (93.8% vs. 65.2%, P = 0.056) and flap pelvic reconstruction (93.7% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.002). The rate of ureteric stricture trended higher in the DBUC group (25.0% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.21), but in contrast, urine leak (6.3% vs. 8.7%, P>0.999), urosepsis (43.8% vs. 60.9%, P = 0.29), anastomotic leak (0.0% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999), and stomal complications requiring repair (6.3% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.63) trended lower. These differences were not statistically significant. Rates of grade III or greater complications were similar; however, no patients in the DBUC group died within 30-days or had grade IV complications requiring ICU admission compared with two deaths and one grade IV complication in the IC group.

CONCLUSION

DBUC is a safe alternative to IC for urinary diversion following TPE, with potentially fewer complications. Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes are required.