Skip to main content

Bowel Segments (GI Tissue)

Ileum and colon are the usual bowel segments for urinary reservoirs and diversion. Appendix and reconfigured ileum can provide catheterizable channels; bowel interposition is also an option for selected extensive ureteral defects. Segment choice depends on the required function, vascular reach, remaining bowel, renal reserve and the patient's ability to manage the reconstruction.[1][2][3]

The tissue properties and consequences of bowel harvest are compared below. The augmentation principles, urinary diversion principles, catheterizable channels, and ileal ureter pages cover procedure selection and operative detail.

Fundamental Principles​

Match configuration to function​

Detubularization is a reservoir principle. Opening and folding bowel disrupts coordinated tubular contractions and creates a larger storage chamber. Reconfiguration aims for lower storage pressure. An ileal conduit, conventional ileal ureter and appendix channel retain a tubular function. Monti construction opens a short bowel segment and retubularizes it in another orientation.[1][4][5]

A sphere encloses the greatest volume for a given surface area. This geometric advantage is distinct from the Laplace relationship between pressure, radius and wall tension. Actual reservoir pressure also depends on tissue behavior, configuration, filling volume and emptying.[5][6] Tubular colon is a poor storage-reservoir design because substantial phasic contractions may persist.[5][6]

Preserve bowel and drainage​

Reconstruction needs enough healthy, perfused tissue to give the required capacity or reach without tension, torsion or unnecessary bowel sacrifice. Prior resection, radiation, inflammatory bowel disease, bowel function and nutritional reserve all affect selection.[1][2][3] Saving terminal ileum and the ileocecal valve where feasible reduces nutritional and bowel-function consequences.[1][2][3]

A reconstruction needs safe storage, drainage and a reliable emptying plan. An antireflux mechanism cannot compensate for obstruction or an inadequately emptied high-pressure reservoir.[7][8]

Segments & Applications​

1. Ileum​

Ileum is widely used because its mesentery permits mobilization and its wall can be reconfigured for storage or drainage.[1][3]

  • Augmentation: a detubularized patch enlarges a bivalved bladder. Published series show substantial improvements in storage pressure and continence, but results depend on indication, outlet competence, emptying and follow-up. The operation introduces lifelong risks of stones, perforation, bowel dysfunction and metabolic disturbance.[3][9][10]
  • Orthotopic neobladder: Studer, Hautmann, I-, Y- and other configurations use different bowel lengths and afferent-limb designs. There is no universal 40–60 cm recipe for every neobladder. The Studer afferent limb accepts a freely refluxing ureteroileal anastomosis. Outcome comparisons must specify configuration, continence definition, sex and follow-up.[11][12][7]
  • Ileal conduit: a short tubular segment drains to a cutaneous stoma and external appliance. It generally requires less reservoir construction than continent diversion, but still carries bowel, stomal, ureteroenteric and renal complications.[13][14]
  • Conventional ileal ureter: bowel bridges a long ureteral defect. Renal reserve, bladder pressure, drainage and irradiated bowel require particular attention. Bilateral reconstruction increases the amount of renal function potentially affected by a complication.[15][16]
  • Yang-Monti ureter or catheterizable channel. Short ileal segments are opened and retubularized transversely to create a longer, narrower tube. Reduced bowel use is a technical advantage.[17][18][19] Significant renal impairment requires careful selection and metabolic planning.[17][18][19]

A 2026 retrospective series from three institutions included 48 patients who underwent robotic intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement (20 with prior radiation). Success, defined as no flank pain, no obstruction on functional imaging or endoscopy and no related intervention, was reported in 33/36 patients (91.7%) with at least six months of follow-up, at a median of 24 months. The 91.7% figure excludes the 12 operated patients without six-month follow-up. Major (Clavien grade III or higher) 30-day complications occurred in 9/48 (18.8%). All three failures were in the radiation subgroup (success 76.9% vs 100%). The series shows feasibility in selected complex cases, with substantial morbidity and limited longer-term follow-up.[15]

2. Ileocecal Segment and Right Colon​

The ileocecal valve can contribute to an outlet continence mechanism, usually with surgical modification. Harvest may sacrifice terminal ileum and the valve's normal gastrointestinal function.[20][21]

ReservoirConfigurationCounseling point
Indiana pouchDetubularized cecum/right colon with a tapered terminal-ileal catheterizable outletRequires lifelong catheterization and follow-up
Mainz IIleocecal reservoir with a procedure-specific outletDistinguish a cutaneous pouch from orthotopic reconstruction and from rectosigmoid Mainz II diversion
Charleston / Miami variantsIleocolonic reservoirs with differing outlet designsSmall technique series

Technical descriptions and observational outcomes: [20][21][22][23]

Long-term Indiana pouch context: Polm's 33-patient retrospective cohort had median follow-up of 258 months. 22/33 (67%) underwent at least one surgical revision; 31/33 pouches remained functional at final follow-up. The estimated mean revision-free interval of 198 months should be read alongside the revision burden, not as a promise of uncomplicated function.[24]

3. Colon​

  • Sigmoid augmentation and neobladder. Published comparisons suggest different continence, capacity and emptying profiles from ileal reservoirs.[6][25][26]
  • Sigmoid or descending-colon conduit: During selected exenterations with an end colostomy, the arrangement can avoid an additional bowel anastomosis.[1][27]
  • Transverse-colon conduit: may offer useful reach when ureteral length is limited or usable bowel lies outside a previously irradiated pelvis. Suitability depends on the actual radiation field and vascular anatomy.[1]

4. Stomach​

Gastrocystoplasty has a historical niche when conventional bowel options are limited. Gastric acid secretion can offset acidosis but also produces hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis and hematuria-dysuria syndrome. Gastric tissue is generally avoided for routine lower-tract reconstruction because of these problems and reports of late malignancy.[28][29][30][31][32]

In one retrospective series, three of 29 patients reconstructed with gastric segments developed malignancy in the reservoir 11 to 14 years later, and all three died of metastasis. The 10% cancer figure describes only this small gastric-reservoir cohort. Patients with existing gastric reconstructions need specialist follow-up.[32]

5. Jejunum​

Jejunum is generally avoided because of severe salt and water loss. Sodium and chloride move into urine, while potassium and hydrogen are absorbed from urine. The resulting syndrome combines hyponatremia, hypochloremia, hyperkalemia, dehydration and metabolic acidosis.[1][2][33]

6. Appendix​

The appendix is often suitable for a Mitrofanoff channel when its caliber, length and blood supply permit tension-free placement. A tunnel or other continence mechanism connects it to a low-pressure reservoir. Stomal stenosis, difficult catheterization, leakage and revision remain possible.[19][34][35]

Appendiceal onlay ureteroplasty and tubular interposition are different procedures. Onlay augments a ureteral plate; interposition replaces a segment. Most published appendiceal ureteral reconstructions are right-sided; tissue reach and perfusion determine suitability. Comparative channel series may favor appendix over some Monti configurations, but technique and patient selection affect revision risk.[36][37]

Metabolic & Nutritional Consequences​

Tissue in contact with urineMain disturbancePractical implication
Ileum / colonAmmonium/chloride absorption and bicarbonate loss can cause hyperchloremic metabolic acidosisRisk depends on surface area, contact time, drainage and renal function; potassium depletion may accompany acidosis
StomachGastric acid loss into urine can cause hypochloremic, often hypokalemic alkalosisDehydration and renal impairment can worsen the disturbance
JejunumUrinary sodium/chloride loss with potassium/hydrogen absorptionPotentially severe salt-wasting, hyperkalemic acidosis; avoid routine use

Segment physiology: [1][2][33]

Other consequences are determined by the whole reconstruction and remaining gastrointestinal tract:

  • B12 deficiency. Terminal-ileal loss or dysfunction contributes; relevant gastric resection can also impair absorption. Deficiency may take years to emerge. The 2026 EAU muscle-invasive bladder cancer guideline states that B12 should be measured annually after cystectomy with bowel diversion, citing low levels in 17% of patients with bowel diversion; this is guideline text rather than a graded recommendation.[2][14]
  • Diarrhea and malabsorption: bile-acid malabsorption, loss of the ileocecal valve, remaining bowel length and baseline function matter.[2][38] Long-term augmentation cohorts identify substantial bowel symptoms.[2][38]
  • Stones, mucus and infection: these depend on emptying, foreign material, infection and metabolic factors. An appendix-only channel does not confer the same exposure as a large enteric reservoir.[2][8][14]
  • Bone and renal health: chronic acidosis, renal deterioration and nutritional deficits can contribute to bone loss.[2][14]

For monitoring and treatment, see B12 supplementation, urinary alkalinizers, and mucus management.

Malignancy and Lifelong Surveillance​

Secondary tumors can arise years or decades after bowel reconstruction. Published risks differ by underlying disease, reconstruction, follow-up and ascertainment.[39][40][41][42] The independent effect of augmentation remains uncertain.[39][40][41][42]

A blanket rule of cystoscopy at five years and annual cytology at ten years should not be applied to every bowel reconstruction. In adults with NLUTD, AUA/SUFU recommends against screening or surveillance cystoscopy .[8] In adults with NLUTD after lower urinary tract reconstruction using bowel, gross hematuria or symptomatic recurrent UTI calls for cystoscopy .[8] The guideline discussion adds that unexplained suprapubic pain also merits evaluation, and that these symptoms are not assumed to come from catheterization trauma, cystitis or pouchitis until investigated. Prior malignancy and ureterosigmoidostomy/rectosigmoid diversion require their own disease- and anatomy-specific surveillance plans.[39][8]

AUA/SUFU states that adults with NLUTD who have had bowel reconstruction should be assessed annually with history, examination, a basic metabolic panel and urinary-tract imaging .[8] Its discussion notes that a continent stoma without augmentation carries no risk of the electrolyte or acid-base abnormalities seen after augmentation, so yearly evaluation without a metabolic panel would suffice. Surveillance is intensified for renal deterioration, obstruction, recurrent infection or changing storage and emptying. Cancer-related surveillance is a separate question.[8][14]

What Comparative Evidence Can Tell Us​

The 2012 Cochrane review included five small trials with 355 participants, with a search ending in October 2011. Poor reporting, attrition and analyses that did not account for paired renal units limited interpretation.[7]

The later USC-STAR randomized trial compared 237 T-pouch with 247 Studer neobladders. At three years, the antireflux T-pouch did not demonstrate better renal preservation and required more diversion-related secondary operations.[43]

A 2026 meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohorts comparing ileal conduit with orthotopic ileal neobladder after radical cystectomy found no significant difference in eGFR change, end-stage renal disease or clinically significant GFR decline; neobladder was associated with more ureteroenteric strictures (RR 2.58) and about 80 minutes longer operating time.[44]

OptionDaily managementImportant trade-offs
Ileal conduitStoma appliance and skin careContinuous drainage; stomal, upper-tract and bowel complications still require follow-up
Orthotopic neobladderTimed emptying, continence rehabilitation; catheterization if necessaryUrethral outlet without a cutaneous stoma; possible nighttime leakage, retention and metabolic burden
Continent cutaneous reservoirReliable catheterization through a stoma and reservoir careAvoids continuous external drainage but introduces channel/outlet revision risk

Selection should consider anatomy, renal/hepatic reserve, cognition, dexterity, support and patient preference. Neither a pooled quality-of-life score nor an unadjusted complication rate chooses the operation for an individual.[13][21][24]

Segment Selection Summary​

SegmentCommon rolesMain limitation
IleumReservoir, conduit, ureter replacement, Monti channelBowel sacrifice, metabolic exposure and nutritional consequences vary by configuration
Ileocecal / right colonContinent cutaneous reservoirValve/terminal-ileal loss and catheterizable-outlet complications
Sigmoid / transverse colonSelected reservoir or conduitPerfusion, reach, prior radiation and bowel plan determine suitability
StomachRare salvage/historical augmentationAcid-related symptoms, alkalosis and concerning long-term complications
JejunumExceptional salvage onlySevere salt and electrolyte disturbance
AppendixCatheterizable channel; selected ureteral onlay or interpositionLimited length/caliber and variable reach; revision can still be needed

See also: Bowel Anastomosis, Bowel Handling & Injury Management, Reoperative Bowel Harvest, Bowel Anatomy, Decellularized ECM, Rectus Fascia, Porcine Acellular Collagen Matrix.

References​

1. Hansen MH, Hayn M, Murray P. The Use of Bowel in Urologic Reconstructive Surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America. 2016;96(3):567-582. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2016.02.011

2. Roth JD, Koch MO. Metabolic and Nutritional Consequences of Urinary Diversion Using Intestinal Segments to Reconstruct the Urinary Tract. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2018;45(1):19-24. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.007

3. Cheng PJ, Myers JB. Augmentation Cystoplasty in the Patient With Neurogenic Bladder. World Journal of Urology. 2020;38(12):3035-3046. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02919-z

4. Schmidbauer CP, Chiang H, Raz S. The Impact of Detubularization on Ileal Reservoirs. The Journal of Urology. 1987;138(6):1440-1445. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43671-8

5. Hinman F. Selection of Intestinal Segments for Bladder Substitution: Physical and Physiological Characteristics. The Journal of Urology. 1988;139(3):519-523. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42509-2

6. Mitchell ME, Piser JA. Intestinocystoplasty and Total Bladder Replacement in Children and Young Adults: Followup in 129 Cases. The Journal of Urology. 1987;138(3):579-584. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43264-2

7. Cody JD, Nabi G, Dublin N, et al. Urinary Diversion and Bladder Reconstruction/Replacement Using Intestinal Segments for Intractable Incontinence or Following Cystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;(2):CD003306. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003306.pub2

8. American Urological Association / SUFU. Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction guideline. 2021. Statements 19, 58 and 60. Full guideline.

9. Chang JW, Kuo FC, Lin TC, et al. Long-Term Complications and Outcomes of Augmentation Cystoplasty in Children With Neurogenic Bladder. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):4214. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54431-z

10. Blaivas JG, Weiss JP, Desai P, et al. Long-Term Followup of Augmentation Enterocystoplasty and Continent Diversion in Patients With Benign Disease. The Journal of Urology. 2005;173(5):1631-1634. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000154891.40110.08

11. Piramide F, Turri F, Amparore D, et al. Atlas of Intracorporeal Orthotopic Neobladder Techniques After Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy and Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes. European Urology. 2024;85(4):348-360. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.017

12. Hautmann RE, Volkmer B, Egghart G, et al. Functional Outcome and Complications Following Ileal Neobladder Reconstruction in Male Patients Without Tumor Recurrence. More Than 35 Years of Experience From a Single Center. The Journal of Urology. 2021;205(1):174-182. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001345

13. Lee RK, Abol-Enein H, Artibani W, et al. Urinary Diversion After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Options, Patient Selection, and Outcomes. BJU International. 2014;113(1):11-23. doi:10.1111/bju.12121

14. European Association of Urology. Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer guideline. 2026. Section 7.4, functional follow-up. Guideline.

15. Ji E, Naser-Tavakolian A, Kanabolo D, et al. Reconstruction of a Devastated Ureter: Multi-Institutional Experience With Robotic Intracorporeal Ileal Ureter Replacement. European Urology. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2026.01.011

16. Roth JD, Monn MF, Szymanski KM, Bihrle R, Mellon MJ. Ureteral Reconstruction With Ileum: Long-Term Follow-Up of Renal Function. Urology. 2017;104:225-229. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.02.026

17. Ali-el-Dein B, Ghoneim MA. Bridging Long Ureteral Defects Using the Yang-Monti Principle. The Journal of Urology. 2003;169(3):1074-1077. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000050151.66653.cc

18. Ali-El-Dein B, El-Hefnawy AS, D'Elia G, et al. Long-Term Outcome of Yang-Monti Ileal Replacement of the Ureter: A Technique Suitable for Mild, Moderate Loss of Kidney Function and Solitary Kidney. Urology. 2021;152:153-159. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.061

19. Galansky L, Andolfi C, Adamic B, Gundeti MS. Continent Cutaneous Catheterizable Channels in Pediatric Patients: A Decade of Experience With Open and Robotic Approaches in a Single Center. European Urology. 2021;79(6):866-878. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.08.013

20. Santucci RA, Park CH, Mayo ME, Lange PH. Continence and Urodynamic Parameters of Continent Urinary Reservoirs: Comparison of Gastric, Ileal, Ileocolic, Right Colon, and Sigmoid Segments. Urology. 1999;54(2):252-257. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00098-9

21. Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wang LC, Nguyen DP, et al. Is Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion a Suitable Alternative to Orthotopic Bladder Substitute and Ileal Conduit After Cystectomy? BJU International. 2015;116(5):805-814. doi:10.1111/bju.12919

22. Bissada NK. New Continent Ileocolonic Urinary Reservoir: Charleston Pouch With Minimally Altered In Situ Appendix Stoma. Urology. 1993;41(6):524-526. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(93)90097-t

23. Pattou M, Baboudjian M, Pinar U, et al. Continent Cutaneous Urinary Diversion With an Ileal Pouch With the Mitrofanoff Principle Versus a Miami Pouch in Patients Undergoing Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Results of a Comparative Study. World Journal of Urology. 2022;40(5):1159-1165. doi:10.1007/s00345-022-03954-z

24. Polm PD, Wyndaele MIA, de Kort LMO. Very Long-Term Follow-Up of Indiana Pouches Proves Durability. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2024;43(5):1090-1096. doi:10.1002/nau.25344

25. Tao S, Long Z, Zhang XJ, et al. Ileal Versus Sigmoid Neobladder as Bladder Substitute After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Surgery. 2016;27:39-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.044

26. Kato M, Takeda A, Saito S, et al. Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Ileal and Sigmoid Orthotopic Neobladder Procedures. Urology. 2007;69(1):74-77. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.023

27. Alemozaffar M, Nam CS, Said MA, et al. Avoiding the Need for Bowel Anastomosis During Pelvic Exenteration — Urinary Sigmoid or Descending Colon Conduit—Short and Long Term Complications. Urology. 2019;129:228-233. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.015

28. Adams MC, Mitchell ME, Rink RC. Gastrocystoplasty: An Alternative Solution to the Problem of Urological Reconstruction in the Severely Compromised Patient. The Journal of Urology. 1988;140(5 Pt 2):1152-1156. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41986-0

29. Kurzrock EA, Baskin LS, Kogan BA. Gastrocystoplasty: Is There a Consensus? World Journal of Urology. 1998;16(4):242-250. doi:10.1007/s003450050061

30. Abdel-Azim MS, Abdel-Hakim AM. Gastrocystoplasty in Patients With an Areflexic Low Compliant Bladder. European Urology. 2003;44(2):260-265. doi:10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00260-4

31. Mingin GC, Stock JA, Hanna MK. Gastrocystoplasty: Long-Term Complications in 22 Patients. The Journal of Urology. 1999;162(3 Pt 2):1122-1125. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)68092-3

32. Castellan M, Gosalbez R, Bar-Yosef Y, Labbie A. Complications After Use of Gastric Segments for Lower Urinary Tract Reconstruction. The Journal of Urology. 2012;187(5):1823-1827. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.105

33. Steiner MS, Morton RA. Nutritional and Gastrointestinal Complications of the Use of Bowel Segments in the Lower Urinary Tract. Urologic Clinics of North America. 1991;18(4):743-754. doi:10.1016/S0094-0143(21)00375-X

34. Leslie B, Lorenzo AJ, Moore K, et al. Long-Term Followup and Time to Event Outcome Analysis of Continent Catheterizable Channels. The Journal of Urology. 2011;185(6):2298-2302. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.601

35. Abdelhalim A, Omar H, Edwan M, et al. Reoperation for Channel Complications in Children With Continent Cutaneous Catheterizable Channels: The Test of Time. Urology. 2022;159:196-202. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.015

36. Xiong S, Zhu W, Li X, et al. Intestinal Interposition for Complex Ureteral Reconstruction: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Urology. 2020;27(5):377-386. doi:10.1111/iju.14222

37. Polm PD, Christiaans CHH, Dik P, Wyndaele MIA, de Kort LMO. Continent Catheterizable Urinary Channels: Lessons for Lifelong Urological Care From a Comparative Analysis of Very Long-Term Complications and Revision-Free Survival of Three Different Types. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2024;43(5):1083-1089. doi:10.1002/nau.25350

38. Somani BK, Kumar V, Wong S, et al. Bowel Dysfunction After Transposition of Intestinal Segments Into the Urinary Tract: 8-Year Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Urology. 2007;177(5):1793-1798. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.038

39. Kälble T, Hofmann I, Riedmiller H, Vergho D. Tumor Growth in Urinary Diversion: A Multicenter Analysis. European Urology. 2011;60(5):1081-1086. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.006

40. Austen M, Kälble T. Secondary Malignancies in Different Forms of Urinary Diversion Using Isolated Gut. The Journal of Urology. 2004;172(3):831-838. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000134890.07434.8e

41. Li R, Baack Kukreja JE, Kamat AM. Secondary Tumors After Urinary Diversion. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2018;45(1):91-99. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.010

42. Higuchi TT, Granberg CF, Fox JA, Husmann DA. Augmentation Cystoplasty and Risk of Neoplasia: Fact, Fiction and Controversy. The Journal of Urology. 2010;184(6):2492-2496. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.038

43. Skinner EC, Fairey AS, Groshen S, et al. Randomized Trial of Studer Pouch versus T-Pouch Orthotopic Ileal Neobladder in Patients with Bladder Cancer. J Urol. 2015;194(2):433–439. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.101.

44. Mohamed T, Mohamed H, Deameh MG, et al. Ileal conduit vs. orthotopic ileal neobladder after radical cystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term renal function. Urol Oncol. 2026;44(9):147–157. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2026.05.017.