Skip to main content

Principles of Continent Catheterizable Channels

Continent catheterizable channels (CCCs) are built on one central idea: a narrow conduit implanted into a compliant reservoir in a way that allows catheter passage but resists leakage as the reservoir fills.[1][2] This is the modern expression of the Mitrofanoff principle and it deliberately borrows from the same valve logic that makes the ureterovesical junction competent.

For the broader role of these channels inside bladder reconstruction, see Principles of Bladder Augmentation and Principles of Bladder Neck Reconstruction.

1. The Flap-Valve Mechanism Is the Central Concept​

A flap valve is a central operative design in tunneled CCCs: the proximal channel runs within or against the reservoir wall so filling pressure can compress it.[1][2] A 17-patient pressure-profilometry study supported a role for the intravesical tunnel but could not establish its relative contribution against other closure sites.[40]

Hinman classified four hydrodynamic principles of continence in conduits leading from intestinal reservoirs:[2]

  1. Flap valve: the conduit is compressed against the reservoir wall as filling pressure rises.
  2. Sphincteric compression: a narrow lumen is easier to occlude.
  3. Peristalsis: a minor contributor in most modern channels.
  4. Pressure equilibration / nipple mechanisms: more relevant in specific diversion designs than in standard Mitrofanoff-type channels.

In practice, the flap valve is the main mechanism.

2. Tunnel Length and Muscular Backing Determine Channel Continence​

The flap valve only works if the conduit has enough backed length lying against the reservoir wall.[4][5][6]

Tunnel length​

Watson studied 21 mixed conduits in 20 children. Functional profile length correlated with maximal closure pressure, and clinical continence differed above and below a functional profile length of 2.0 cm (p = 0.05).[4] This was an observational physiologic study.[4] Published extravesical techniques describe a 3–6 cm detrusor incision, and one robotic series emphasized 4 cm of detrusor backing; neither length is a validated universal minimum.[5][6]

Detrusor or reservoir backing​

The tunnel also needs a firm posterior support. In a native bladder this usually means detrusor backing; in other reservoirs it may come from seromuscular or serosal tunnel construction.[5][6][8][9]

The principle is simple:

  • inadequate tunnel length leads to a weak valve,
  • inadequate backing leads to a collapsible but not reliably occlusive tunnel,
  • and both failures show up clinically as stomal leakage.[4][5]

Fixation helps preserve the tunnel​

VanderBrink et al. describe fixing the bladder wall to the abdominal wall to preserve tunnel length and limit angulation.[6] In a retrospective pediatric comparison restricted to channels implanted into bladder, subfascial revision or replacement for difficult catheterization occurred in 1/21 hitched channels versus 8/84 unhitched channels over median 5.8-year follow-up (p = 0.68); no statistically significant difference in time to complications or revisions was found.[41]

3. Implantation Technique Must Match the Reservoir​

There is no single best implantation method. The correct technique depends on whether the conduit is entering native bladder, augmented bladder, or bowel reservoir.

Implantation techniqueBest use casePrinciple
Intravesical submucosal tunnelWhen cystotomy is already being performed, especially with concurrent augmentationClassic Mitrofanoff-style tunnel under bladder mucosa[1][7]
Extravesical detrusor tunnelIsolated channel creation without major cystotomySeromuscular flaps are closed over the channel, analogous to Lich-Gregoir[6][7]
Serosal trough / serous-lined tunnelChannel implantation into bowel reservoir without true detrusor backingUses an extramural serosal tunnel to recreate the valve effect on bowel[8][9][10]

Intravesical tunneling​

Intravesical tunneling is the classic approach and was used with concurrent augmentation in one small robotic pediatric series; comparative superiority in this setting was not tested.[1][7]

Extravesical tunneling​

The extravesical approach avoids a large cystotomy and is attractive when creating an isolated channel. VanderBrink et al. reported stomal continence in 79 of 84 patients (94%) using seromuscular flaps over the channel in a 3-6 cm detrusor incision, with revision in 26% at mean 45 months (mostly skin-level or endoscopic).[6]

Serosal trough techniques​

When the channel enters bowel rather than native bladder, there may be no meaningful detrusor to tunnel beneath. In that setting, serous-lined extramural tunnel techniques solve the same problem by different anatomy and can still deliver continence.[8][9][10]

4. Channel Tissue Selection Follows a Practical Hierarchy​

The conduit itself must be reliable, narrow caliber, well vascularized, and long enough to reach the skin without tension. In most reconstructions, tissue choice follows a clear hierarchy.

Appendix is often preferred when suitable​

Appendix is often preferred when suitable because it is already tubular, accepts a catheter easily, has dependable blood supply, and usually avoids the bowel-manipulation burden of ileal channel construction.[1][14][15] In O'Connor's retrospective adult series, any channel incontinence occurred in 25/87 appendiceal channels (28.7%) versus 45/75 ileal channels (60.0%; p < 0.001) at mean follow-up of 78.6 months.[15] Revision for incontinence occurred in 19.5% versus 36.0% (p = 0.03), while stenosis-related revision was 17.2% versus 22.7% (p = 0.39).[15] In children, Abdelhalim reported higher odds of reoperation with ileal channels (OR 3.4).[16] Polm found no significant difference in revision-free survival between appendix, Monti and tubularized bladder flap. Findings vary by endpoint and follow-up.[14][15][16][21][23]

Monti-family channels are the workhorse backup​

When appendix is unavailable, the Yang-Monti principle uses a short ileal segment opened and retubularized transversely to create a longer, narrow channel.[17][18][19] Monti channels are versatile when suitable healthy bowel is available. In a retrospective pediatric series of 92 patients undergoing 94 Mitrofanoff procedures (25 Monti and 69 appendiceal), catheterization problems occurred in 15 Monti-group patients (reported as 60%) and 18 appendiceal-group patients (reported as 27%); mean follow-up was 25 and 37 months, respectively.[20] In a retrospective adult series, difficult catheterization occurred with 53.3% of ileal channels and 57.5% of appendiceal channels (p = 0.6).[15] In Polm's cohort of 173 channels in adults attending surveillance, 106 channels had been created before age 18; major revision was needed in 31 of 51 Monti channels (61%) versus 27 of 90 appendicovesicostomies (30%).[21] In a separate pediatric series, pouch-like dilation was observed in 7/25 Yang-Monti channels (28%; mean follow-up 25 months); all seven had catheterization problems, and two required pouch resection.[20]

Double Monti and spiral / Casale variants solve length problems​

These variants are useful when a standard channel will not reach comfortably, especially in obese patients or those needing umbilical siting across a long abdominal wall. Their tradeoff is additional construction and routing complexity. Galansky's single-center series preferred a tapered Monti channel over spiral or double Monti because of a better blood supply, and no comparative data establish a vascular-safety ranking against appendix.[19][22]

Tubularized bladder flap is a useful bowel-free alternative​

When bladder capacity is generous and native tissue is available, tubularized bladder flap offers a bowel-sparing option. In one pediatric series (median follow-up 85 months), revision was needed in 52% of all channel types, without a significant difference between appendix, tubularized bladder flap and Monti.[23]

Ureter can work, but is not first-line​

Redundant distal ureter can be used in selected reconstructions, but comparative pressure data suggest it is a less reliable continence conduit than appendix.[4]

5. The Channel Must Be Narrow Enough to Close and Wide Enough to Catheterize​

A continent channel has to satisfy two opposing demands:

  • it must be compressible enough for the flap valve to work,
  • but wide enough to permit easy repeated catheterization.[2][17]

Catheter size varies by reconstruction: O’Connor’s adult series generally used a 12–16 Fr indwelling channel catheter after surgery (16 Fr when possible), while Castellan described a 16–18 Fr lumen as adequate in a mixed-age Monti series.[15][17]

Too wide:

  • resists compression,
  • leaks more easily,
  • loses the valve advantage.

Too narrow:

  • stenoses more easily,
  • traumatizes with repeated catheterization,
  • and becomes difficult to use long term.

For ileal channels, transverse retubularization also reorients the muscle fibers and reduces effective peristaltic behavior.[17][19]

6. Reservoir Compliance Is a Prerequisite, Not a Bonus​

Channel continence depends on the relationship between reservoir pressure and channel closure pressure. If the reservoir stores at high pressure, even a well-constructed CCC can leak or place the upper tracts at risk.[5][11][12][13]

This principle overlaps with augmentation, but its implication for CCCs is specific:

  1. A high-pressure reservoir can overpower the channel valve and cause stomal leakage.
  2. A continent stoma does not protect the kidneys if storage remains unsafe.

That is why augmentation accompanies CCC creation so often in practice.[14][24] When reservoir compliance is poor, the operation is the creation of a safe catheterizable reservoir.

7. Stomal Construction Matters Because Stenosis Is the Commonest Failure Mode​

Stomal stenosis is the commonest CCC complication in most series; in Welk's series, channel leakage was at least as frequent.[25][26][27] Skin-level stenosis is only one failure mechanism. Deeper channel stenosis, redundancy, angulation and valve failure may require different operations.

Principles that reduce stenosis risk​

  • Use vascularized skin flaps when appropriate rather than a simple circular maturation.[28]
  • Preserve distal conduit blood supply, especially with appendix.[26]
  • Avoid tension at the skin exit.
  • Choose a stoma site the patient can catheterize repeatedly without torque or awkward reach. Before surgery, assess hand function, mobility and available caregiver support to establish a sustainable catheterization plan.[13]

Kurzrock's retrospective comparison found 0/30 stenoses with tip preservation versus 12/93 with standard maturation, including urinary and enema channels. Median follow-up differed (3.3 versus 9.4 years).[26]

8. The Channel Path Must Be Straight and Non-Angulated​

Even a continent channel can fail functionally if it is difficult to catheterize. The conduit therefore needs a straight, tension-free, non-kinked trajectory from reservoir to skin.[6][20][23]

Common sites of trouble include:

  • the reservoir entry point,
  • the fascial level,
  • the abdominal wall turn,
  • and the skin exit.

Poor alignment leads to difficult catheterization, creation of false passages, and eventual revision.[6][23]

9. CCCs Are Durable, but They Are Maintenance Reconstructions​

CCCs are lifelong reconstructions with a meaningful revision burden.[16][21][24][25][27]

Long-term series show that:

  • many patients need at least one revision (53% of 173 channels at median 12.4 years in Polm's adult cohort, with 40% needing major revision)[21],
  • complications continue to emerge years after the index surgery,
  • and both minor or endoscopic treatment and major open revision can be required; their proportions vary across cohorts.[16][21][24][27]

Counseling therefore covers surveillance and occasional maintenance. In a retrospective cohort of 561 people whose channels were created at a median age of 8 years, estimated continued use was 89% at 10 years and 81% at 20 years; catheterization by others was associated with disuse, and lack of transition-clinic attendance with nonmechanical disuse.[39] In a 2025 adult series of 44 channels, 28 of 37 evaluable patients (75.7%) still used the channel at median follow-up of 61 months.[30]

A channel can also be the difference between continence and none in patients with severely limited hand function. In a series of six women with tetraplegia after spinal cord injury who remained incontinent despite maximal anticholinergic treatment and clean intermittent catheterization, all six catheterized from their wheelchairs after channel creation; mean catheterization time fell from 27 minutes (range 10–40) before surgery to 7.8 minutes (range 1–15) afterward. At a mean 44-month survey follow-up, all six reported improvement in continence, body image, independence, convenience, time saving and satisfaction.[38]

Parastomal hernia can affect access or require repair. See Parastomal Hernia After Urinary Diversion for the separate repair discussion.

Working up new-onset stomal incontinence​

Most is due to either valve-mechanism dysfunction, usually a detrusor tunnel that has become too short, or a change in reservoir dynamics rather than a tunnel problem. Check catheterization frequency, completeness of emptying, UTI, bladder calculus, and mucus impaction before urodynamics.[32] If leakage remains unexplained, urodynamics can assess reservoir storage and channel closure before revision; address elevated storage pressure when present.[4][5][21] In some augmented patients with stomal leakage, imaging has shown a narrow connection and hourglass-shaped reservoir associated with incomplete bowel detubularization and/or insufficient bladder bivalving at the original reconstruction; revising the augment with complete detubularization and a wide sagittal bladder opening has been described to resolve leakage in this setting, though without a denominator or comparative outcome.[32] If infrequent catheterization contributes to leakage, increase frequency while assessing emptying, infection, stones, mucus and reservoir pressure.[32] Reserve surgical revision for leakage confirmed to occur without elevated intravesical pressure and that remains bothersome; options are bulking-agent injection into the channel to increase outlet resistance, or revision of the detrusor tunnel (wrapping additional detrusor around the existing channel, or fashioning a new tunnel).

For channel bulking, one small series in patients being considered for surgical revision of stomal incontinence reported 10 of 14 patients (71%) dry after a single submucosal dextranomer/hyaluronic-acid injection and 11 of 14 (79%) after a second, at mean follow-up of one year.[33] A literature table of four small series (5–14 patients each) reported 67–89% success across varied bulking materials and follow-up.[34] Checking reservoir function and inspecting the channel endoscopically before bulking is standard; injecting from proximal toward the skin has been reported as technically easier, treating only a short segment of the channel may be inadequate, and implantation has been described as more difficult in a thin-walled Yang-Monti tube than in an appendiceal channel.[34]

10. Ileocecal Continence Mechanisms Are a Separate Option​

Continent cutaneous ileal cecocystoplasty combines a tapered ileal outlet with ileocecal anatomy. It differs from a standard tunneled Mitrofanoff channel and has its own bowel and revision burdens.[29]

Redshaw's retrospective 61-adult comparison found fewer patients needing a secondary procedure with 31 ileocecal constructions than with 30 tunneled channels (4 of 31, 13%, versus 15 of 30, 50%; OR 6.4) at median follow-up of 16 months. Thirty-day postoperative complications occurred in 51.7% of ileocecal cecocystoplasty patients and 40% of tunneled-channel patients in Redshaw's retrospective adult comparison.[29]

A distinct muscle-compression alternative, the Hadera mechanism, uses the native appendix as the catheterizable limb from a detubularized right-colon reservoir. Continence is created by crossing two non-detached right rectus-muscle strips around the appendix rather than relying on a submucosal tunnel.[35] In the original 17-patient series, all patients were continent at a mean follow-up of 32 months (range 4–52), catheterizing every 2–4 hours even during straining.[35] The 17-patient series described primary construction only; salvage use was not assessed.

Comparative trial evidence for diversion and reconstruction choices is limited and poor quality.[3]

Core Principles at a Glance​

  1. Build a flap valve: the channel should be compressed by reservoir filling.
  2. Create enough backed tunnel length: 3–5 cm is a common technical target.
  3. Match implantation method to the reservoir: intravesical, extravesical, or serosal trough.
  4. Prefer appendix when available and use Monti-family or bladder-flap alternatives when it is not.
  5. Balance channel caliber so it closes reliably but remains easy to catheterize.
  6. Ensure the completed reservoir stores at low pressure, adding augmentation at the same operation when indicated.[13]
  7. Construct the stoma to resist stenosis and preserve blood supply.
  8. Route the conduit straight and without tension.
  9. Counsel for lifelong maintenance, because revision is common.
  10. Consider native continence valves such as the ileocecal valve when the reconstructive setting favors them.

Bottom Line for the Reconstructive Surgeon​

Continent catheterizable channels are valved access routes to a safe reservoir.[1][2][6] The required components are a compressible narrow channel, a well-backed tunnel, a low-pressure reservoir, a straight route to the skin, and realistic long-term follow-up.

Positioning, Catheter Management, and VTE​

A CCC may be created alone or with augmentation or an outlet procedure, according to storage and access needs.[13] One published robotic pediatric protocol for combined augmentation and appendicovesicostomy uses supine semi-lithotomy with about 10° Trendelenburg so that catheter and cystoscopic access do not require repositioning.[31]

In a patient who may need a future kidney transplant, siting the stoma so it will not conflict with a likely transplant incision, and identifying the location and orientation of the channel mesentery during operative planning, have been described as transplant-coordination considerations to work through with the transplant team; no comparative outcome data support one particular site.[36]

A small feeding tube is left indwelling through the new channel to stent it during healing; in that same protocol, the channel catheter was capped and secured to the abdomen while two suprapubic catheters and one urethral catheter drained freely for 4 weeks. The channel catheter was then removed and CIC teaching began; the suprapubic catheters were removed after competence with CIC was shown.[31] When reservoir surgery is concomitant, default to its drainage plan; see Augmentation Cystoplasty when augmentation is performed at the same setting.

No CCC-specific VTE recommendation exists in the AUA/SUFU NLUTD guideline.[13] Because the operation is usually combined with bowel-based augmentation, apply the general risk framework (age, obesity, prior VTE, malignancy, prolonged operation or immobility) on the VTE Prophylaxis page, weighted toward the higher end when augmentation is performed concurrently.

Follow-up and loss of access​

Ensure a sustainable catheterization plan and an urgent response for inability to catheterize, especially after outlet closure. Avoid repeated forceful attempts; seek prompt reconstructive assessment and safe drainage.[13]

A stepwise approach to a channel that will not catheterize has been described: first ensure bladder drainage through a patent native urethra when one exists, then attempt gentle passage with the patient's usual or a smaller lubricated catheter. If that fails, a hydrophilic guidewire may help, but a low threshold for small-caliber endoscopy and catheter placement over the wire is favored over repeated traumatic attempts; wire-guided dilation is limited to the channel's usual caliber, and dilation is preferred over incision because of the fragile channel and adjacent bowel. If urethral drainage and endoscopic access both fail, suprapubic drainage is the fallback, with open or ultrasound-guided placement considered when anatomy is altered or bowel is nearby; a catheter is typically left 1–2 weeks after dilation.[32]

For a continent cutaneous channel with proximal but segmentally limited stenosis, one described salvage option takes the channel down, mobilizes the reservoir, raises a U-shaped vascularized flap from the pouch, tapers it over a 16-Fr catheter, and imbricates the pouch around the base of the efferent channel to re-establish the valve; this is contrasted with complete channel replacement when fibrosis is longer or the channel is obliterated. No comparative outcome data support one approach over the other.[37]

AUA/SUFU states that clinicians may offer continent catheterizable channels, with or without augmentation, to select NLUTD patients to facilitate catheterization . The statement text describes a systematic review of 11 retrospective studies (213 patients, median follow-up 36 months) in which reoperation was required in 40% and channel stenosis occurred in 4% to 32%, and it advises preoperative counseling that channel revision is common.[13]

Maintain lifelong clinical and upper-tract follow-up. After bowel augmentation, follow the augmentation surveillance plan. For adults with NLUTD, AUA/SUFU recommends against screening or surveillance cystoscopy .[42] For NLUTD patients after lower urinary tract reconstruction using bowel, it recommends cystoscopy for gross hematuria or symptomatic recurrent UTI .[13] The statement text adds unexplained suprapubic pain to the signs that warrant full evaluation.[13]

Videos​

Robotic-Assisted Continent Cutaneous Diversion
AUA University (2021)

References​

1. Kaefer M, Retik AB. The Mitrofanoff principle in continent urinary reconstruction. Urol Clin North Am. 1997;24(4):795-811. doi:10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70421-3

2. Hinman F. Functional classification of conduits for continent diversion. J Urol. 1990;144(1):27-30. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39357-6

3. 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 Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD003306. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003306.pub2

4. Watson HS, Bauer SB, Peters CA, et al. Comparative urodynamics of appendiceal and ureteral Mitrofanoff conduits in children. J Urol. 1995;154(2 Pt 2):878-882. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67193-3

5. Wille MA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL, Gundeti MS. Continence outcomes in patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1438-1443. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.050

6. VanderBrink BA, Kaefer M, Cain MP, et al. Extravesical implantation of a continent catheterizable channel. J Urol. 2011;185(6 Suppl):2572-2575. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.027

7. Famakinwa OJ, Rosen AM, Gundeti MS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy technique and outcomes of extravesical and intravesical approaches. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):831-836. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.007

8. Baradaran N, Stec AA, Gupta A, Keating MA, Gearhart JP. Using a serosal trough for fashioning a continent catheterizable stoma: technique and outcomes. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):828-833. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11319.x

9. Soygur T, Arikan N, Zumrutbas AE, Gulpinar O. Serosal lined extramural tunnel (Ghoneim) principle in the creation of a catheterizable channel in bladder augmentation. J Urol. 2005;174(2):696-699. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000164742.04779.cc

10. Abdelhalim A, Soltan MA, Helmy TE, Dawaba ME, Hafez AT. Ileal neobladder with a continent cutaneous catheterizable channel using the extramural serous lined (Mansoura) technique in a bladder exstrophy patient. Urology. 2020;146:302. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.021

11. Swatesutipun V, Tangpaitoon T. The safety cutoff storage pressure for preventing upper urinary tract damage in neurogenic bladder from spinal cord pathology and risk factor analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(4):991-1001. doi:10.1002/nau.24911

12. Tarcan T, Demirkesen O, Plata M, Castro-Diaz D. ICS teaching module: detrusor leak point pressures in patients with relevant neurological abnormalities. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(2):259-262. doi:10.1002/nau.22947

13. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. The AUA/SUFU guideline on adult neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: treatment and follow-up. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1106-1113. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002239

14. Cain MP, Casale AJ, King SJ, Rink RC. Appendicovesicostomy and newer alternatives for the Mitrofanoff procedure: results in the last 100 patients at Riley Children's Hospital. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1749-1752. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68230-4

15. O'Connor EM, Foley C, Taylor C, et al. Appendix or ileum-which is the best material for Mitrofanoff channel formation in adults? J Urol. 2019;202(4):757-762. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000356

16. 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

17. Castellan MA, Gosalbez R, Labbie A, Monti PR. Clinical applications of the Monti procedure as a continent catheterizable stoma. Urology. 1999;54(1):152-156. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00046-1

18. Cain MP, Casale AJ, Rink RC. Initial experience using a catheterizable ileovesicostomy (Monti procedure) in children. Urology. 1998;52(5):870-873. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00301-X

19. Leslie JA, Dussinger AM, Meldrum KK. Creation of continence mechanisms (Mitrofanoff) without appendix: the Monti and spiral Monti procedures. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(2):148-153. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.09.007

20. Narayanaswamy B, Wilcox DT, Cuckow PM, Duffy PG, Ransley PG. The Yang-Monti ileovesicostomy: a problematic channel? BJU Int. 2001;87(9):861-865. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.02208.x

21. 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. Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(5):1083-1089. doi:10.1002/nau.25350

22. 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. Eur Urol. 2021;79(6):866-878. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.08.013

23. Polm PD, de Kort LMO, de Jong TPVM, Dik P. Techniques used to create continent catheterizable channels: a comparison of long-term results in children. Urology. 2017;110:192-195. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.030

24. Leslie B, Lorenzo AJ, Moore K, et al. Long-term followup and time to event outcome analysis of continent catheterizable channels. J Urol. 2011;185(6):2298-2302. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.601

25. Welk BK, Afshar K, Rapoport D, MacNeily AE. Complications of the catheterizable channel following continent urinary diversion: their nature and timing. J Urol. 2008;180(4 Suppl):1856-1860. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.093

26. Kurzrock EA. A new appendicostomy technique to prevent stomal stenosis. J Urol. 2020;203(6):1200-1206. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000711

27. Reuvers SHM, van den Hoek J, Blok BFM, et al. 20 years experience with appendicovesicostomy in paediatric patients: complications and their re-interventions. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1325-1329. doi:10.1002/nau.23045

28. Kajbafzadeh AM, Chubak N. Simultaneous Malone antegrade continent enema and Mitrofanoff principle using the divided appendix: report of a new technique for prevention of stoma complications. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 2):2404-2409. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66215-5

29. Redshaw JD, Elliott SP, Rosenstein DI, et al. Procedures needed to maintain functionality of adult continent catheterizable channels: a comparison of continent cutaneous ileal cecocystoplasty with tunneled catheterizable channels. J Urol. 2014;192(3):821-826. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.088

30. Morris KE, Burns R, Snook V, et al. "Outcomes of Continent Catheterizable Channels Created in Adults." Urology. 2025;206:157-161. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.07.023

31. Adamic B, Kirkire L, Andolfi C, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in children: step-by-step and modifications to UChicago technique. BJUI Compass. 2020;1(1):32-40. doi:10.1002/bco2.7

32. Kalyanaraman B, Elliott SP. Troubleshooting Continent Catheterizable Channels. In: Wood HM, Wood D, eds. Transition and Lifelong Care in Congenital Urology. Springer; 2015:115-121. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14042-1_10

33. Prieto JC, Perez-Brayfield M, Kirsch AJ, Koyle MA. "The Treatment of Catheterizable Stomal Incontinence with Endoscopic Implantation of Dextranomer/Hyaluronic Acid." J Urol. 2006;175(2):709-711. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00185-0

34. Cerwinka WH, Kirsch AJ. Injectables in Pediatric Urology: Reflux, Bladder Neck, and Stomas. In: Montague DK, Gill IS, Angermeier KW, Ross JH, eds. Textbook of Reconstructive Urologic Surgery. Informa Healthcare; 2008:213-225.

35. Yachia D, Erlich N. "The Hadera Continent Reservoir: A New Appendico-Umbilical Continent Stoma Mechanism for Urinary Diversion." J Urol. 2001;165(5):1423-1426. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66321-5. PMID:11342890

36. Tran C, Rabets J. Renal Transplantation in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction. In: Wood HM, Wood D, eds. Transition and Lifelong Care in Congenital Urology. Springer; 2015:149-162. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14042-1_14

37. Syan-Bhanvadia S, Daneshmand S. Stomal Complications. In: Daneshmand S, ed. Urinary Diversion. Springer; 2017:121-141. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52186-2_9

38. Walsh K, Troxel SA, Stone AR. "An Assessment of the Use of a Continent Catheterizable Stoma in Female Tetraplegics." BJU Int. 2004;94(4):595-597. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05007.x

39. Griffin YM, Misseri R, Roth JD, et al. "Use and disuse of catheterizable channels as the primary method of emptying the neuropathic bladder: A single institutional cohort study." J Urol. 2025;213(3):361-369. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004313

40. Christiaans CHH, Polm PD, van Steenbergen TRF, Wyndaele MIA, de Kort LMO. "Why are continent catheterizable channels continent? A stomal pressure profilometry feasibility study." Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(8):2093-2100. doi:10.1002/nau.25546

41. Elliott NA, Yerkes EB, Hirsch J, et al. "Continent catheterizable channels: Does “hitching” the bladder reduce complications?" J Pediatr Urol. 2025;21(2):420-425. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.12.001

42. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. "The AUA/SUFU Guideline on Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Diagnosis and Evaluation." J Urol. 2021;206(5):1097-1105. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002235