Bricker versus Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis: A multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis
- PMID: 38644653
- DOI: 10.1111/iju.15471
Bricker versus Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis: A multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis
Abstract
Aim of the study: The aim of our study is to evaluate the difference in stricture rate between matched groups of Bricker and Wallace techniques for ureteroileal anastomosis.
Patients and methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing urinary diversion (UD) with Bricker and Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis at two university hospitals. Two groups of Bricker and Wallace patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on the age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), preoperative hydronephrosis, prior radiation therapy or abdominal surgery, pathologic T and N stages and 30-days-Clavien grade complications≥III. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of ureteroenteric stricture (UES) in all patients.
Results: Overall, 740 patients met the inclusion criteria and 209 patients in each group were propensity matched. At a similar median follow-up of 25 months, UES was detected in 25 (12%) and 30 (14.4%) patients in Bricker and Wallace groups, respectively (p = 0.56). However, only one patient in the Bricker group developed a bilateral stricture compared to 15 patients in the Wallace group, resulting in a significantly higher number of affected renal units in the Wallace group: 45 (10.7%) versus only 26 (6.2%) in the Bricker group (p = 0.00). On multivariable extended Cox analysis, prior radiotherapy, presence of T4 pelvic malignancy and nodal positive disease were independent predictor of UES formation.
Conclusion: The technique of ureteroileal anastomosis itself does not increase the rate of stricture; however, conversion of two renal units into one is associated with a higher incidence of bilateral upper tract involvement.
Keywords: Bricker; Wallace; radical cystectomy; ureteroenteric stricture; urinary diversion.
© 2024 The Japanese Urological Association.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Bricker EM. Substitution for the urinary bladder by the use of isolated ileal segments. Surg Clin North Am. 1956;36:1117–1130.
-
- Wallace DM. Ureteric diversion using a conduit: a simplified technique. BJU Int. 1966;38:522–527.
-
- Butcher HR, Sugg WL, McAFEE CA, Bricker EM. Ileal conduit method of ureteral urinary diversion. Ann Surg. 1962;156:682–691.
-
- Albert DJ, Persky L. Conjoined end‐to‐end uretero‐intestinal anastomosis. J Urol. 1971;105:201–204.
-
- Clark PB. End‐to‐end ureteroileal anastomosis for ileal conduits. BJU Int. 1979;51:105–109.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous