↓ Skip to main content

Bricker ileal conduit vs. Cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International braz j urol, January 2022
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bricker ileal conduit vs. Cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review
Published in
International braz j urol, January 2022
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.0892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Korkes, Eduardo Fernandes, Felipe Arakaki Gushiken, Felipe Placco Araujo Glina, Willy Baccaglini, Frederico Timóteo, Sidney Glina

Abstract

A systematic review of the literature with available published literature to compare ileal conduit (IC) and cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) urinary diversions (UD) in terms of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of high-risk elderly patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC). Protocol Registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42020168851. A systematic review, according to the PRISMA Statement, was performed. Search through the Medline, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, Lilacs, and Cochrane Database until July 2020. The literature search yielded 2,883 citations and were selected eight studies, including 1096 patients. A total of 707 patients underwent IC and 389 CU. Surgical procedures and outcomes, complications, mortality, and quality of life were analyzed. CU seems to be a safe alternative for the elderly and more frail patients. It is associated with faster surgery, less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, a lower necessity of intensive care, and shorter hospital stay. According to most studies, complications are less frequent after CU, even though mortality rates are similar. Studies with long-term follow up are awaited.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 13%
Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 25%
Unspecified 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%