Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1996;14(2):78-84.
doi: 10.1007/BF00182562.

Detubularized right colonic reservoir with intussuscepted ileal nipple valve or stapled ileal ("Lundiana") outlet. Clinical and urodynamic results in a prospective randomized study

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Detubularized right colonic reservoir with intussuscepted ileal nipple valve or stapled ileal ("Lundiana") outlet. Clinical and urodynamic results in a prospective randomized study

T Davidsson et al. World J Urol. 1996.

Abstract

In a prospective randomized study, patients undergoing cystectomy and continent urinary diversion by means of a detubularized right colonic reservoir were randomized to one of two types of outlet: either an intussuscepted ileal nipple valve (n = 15) or a stapled ileal ("Lundiana") outlet (n = 15). There were no early complications from the reconstruction. Subsequently, one ileal nipple outlet required revision because of progressive catheterization difficulties. In the Lundiana group, perforation of the reservoir occurred in one case and a narrow stomal opening was revised in local anesthesia in two cases. Urodynamic assessment revealed similar pressures at rest for the two outlets. At stress (concomitant with reservoir contraction), there was a distinct increase in outlet pressure in the nipple valves, but this was rarely encountered in the Lundiana group. Questionnaires showed episodes of urinary leakage to be more common in the Lundiana group, whereas the reverse applied to catheterization difficulties. In both groups, however, the great majority of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the function of the urinary tract.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Urol. 1990 Jul;144(1):27-30 - PubMed
    1. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1989;23(3):195-200 - PubMed
    1. Urology. 1995 Dec;46(6):804-9 - PubMed
    1. J Urol. 1990 Mar;143(3):607-11 - PubMed
    1. J Urol. 1992 Aug;148(2 Pt 2):728-32 - PubMed

Publication types