Skip to main content

Hautmann W-Configuration Ileal Neobladder

The Hautmann neobladder is an orthotopic ileal reservoir arranged in a W configuration, detubularized and connected to the native urethra. The original 1988 publication by Hautmann and colleagues described 11 patients and a 70 cm ileal segment opened along the antimesenteric border and fashioned into a spherical pouch, with Le Duc–Camey ureteral implantation. Videourodynamic studies showed pressures below 30 cm H₂O and no reflux. Eight of the 11 patients were dry day and night and three had grade I stress incontinence.[1] Subsequent modifications differ in bowel length, outlet construction and ureteral implantation.[1][2]

The Ulm reports represent a large institutional experience accumulated over decades. The 2011 late-complication analysis included 923 patients with a median 72 months of follow-up; the 2021 functional report selected 259 men with complete follow-up beyond 60 months (median 121 months), without recurrence, irradiation or undiversion.[3][4]

Selection and Planning​

Discuss orthotopic, continent cutaneous and conduit options in the context of kidney/liver function, bowel suitability, cancer extent, sphincter function, the ability to empty or catheterize and patient priorities. Assess urethral involvement. AUA 2024 Statement 14 requires verification of a negative urethral margin before orthotopic reconstruction.[5] EAU 2026 identifies preoperative bladder-neck biopsy as important in women considered for a neobladder and gives a Strong recommendation against orthotopic diversion when invasive tumor involves the urethra or planned dissection level.[6] Patients must be able and willing to undertake the required self-care, including intermittent catheterization when necessary. Age alone is not an absolute contraindication.[5][6] EAU 2026 states that orthotopic neobladder may be considered in N1 disease, but not in N2 or N3 disease.[6]

Inadequate renal or hepatic function, insufficient usable bowel, an uncorrectable urethral stricture, debilitating neurological or psychiatric illness, limited life expectancy, or inability to manage a continent diversion may preclude reconstruction.[6] EAU treats high-dose preoperative radiotherapy, complex urethral stricture and severe sphincter-related incontinence as relative contraindications. A historical label of any urethral disease or any leakage is too broad to decide eligibility. See Urinary Diversion Principles for detailed selection.[5][6]

Anatomy and Design​

  • Detubularized ileum. Opening the bowel along the antimesenteric border interrupts coordinated tubular contractions. It does not remove smooth muscle.
  • Four-limb W configuration. Adjacent edges are joined into a plate and the remaining edges are closed into a rounded reservoir.
  • Dependent urethral outlet. The reservoir must reach the retained urethra without mesenteric tension, twisting or excessive outlet angulation.
  • Ureteral drainage. The original report used Le Duc–Camey implantation. A refluxing chimney or a serous-lined extramural tunnel is a distinct modification; the W shape does not itself determine the reflux mechanism.[1][7][8]

A rounded reservoir has a favorable volume-to-surface relationship. For an ideal thin-walled sphere, P = 2T/r at a given wall tension and volume varies with r³; doubling the radius gives eight times the volume.

Operative Framework​

  1. Select the bowel and confirm reach. Preserve mesenteric blood supply and choose a segment that reaches the urethra without tension. The original 70 cm design and shorter published modifications are different constructions.
  2. Isolate the planned segment and restore bowel continuity. Preserve appropriate terminal ileum and confirm mesenteric orientation.
  3. Detubularize the reservoir segment. Open along the antimesenteric border; leave any deliberately planned chimney intact.
  4. Form the W plate. Approximate adjacent limbs and suture their edges to construct the posterior reservoir wall.
  5. Construct the chosen ureteral anastomosis. Maintain ureteral perfusion and avoid tension or kinking.
  6. Create the dependent urethral outlet and close the reservoir. Achieve a tension-free pouch-to-urethra anastomosis and watertight reservoir closure. The sequence varies with approach and modification. If the pouch will not reach the urethra without tension, a described rescue sequence loosens the retractor, flattens sacral support and adjusts the table to rotate the pelvic floor upward, elevates the perineum with a finger or sponge stick, further mobilizes the cecum and descending colon if needed, and moves the outlet toward the tip of the U-shaped ileal flap; if these steps still leave tension, tubularizing the flap for a direct end-to-end anastomosis has been described, while rough traction on or incisions into the reservoir mesentery are avoided. This sequence is one surgeon's attributed technique.[31]
  7. Confirm drainage and leak-testing findings. Document stents, pouch drainage and the postoperative plan. For radical cystectomy, include combined mechanical and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; the 2024 AUA guideline rates perioperative pharmacologic prophylaxis a Strong Recommendation (Grade B).[5] EAU 2026 gives a Strong recommendation for pharmacologic prophylaxis beginning on postoperative day 1 and continuing for at least four weeks.[6] Catheter caliber and removal timing follow the actual reconstruction and the healing assessment.[1][2][9]

Chimney modification​

An intact ileal limb provides reach for ureteral implantation and may simplify later access. Lippert–Theodorescu's three-patient report described a 5–10 cm or longer chimney when needed for a short ureter.[10] Hollowell's 50-patient series used an 8–12 cm isoperistaltic chimney. Hollowell noted that the anterior position of the ureters and the identifiable isoperistaltic limb made open revision of the ureterointestinal anastomosis easier.[7]

Direct ureteral implantation in the chimney is refluxing.[7] Hollowell reported six strictures in 100 ureteral units and one-year good daytime/nighttime continence of 93%/86%; this was an uncontrolled series.[7]

Short-segment modification​

Sevin's series used a 40 cm reservoir in 124 men operated on over ten years. Mean maximum capacity was 550 mL (range 310–720) and mean maximum pressure 26.4 cm H₂O. Day and night continence were 92% and 90% after four years. The series also reported mild-to-moderate metabolic acidosis in 58% and six deaths within 30 days (two unrelated to the diversion).[11]

Robotic intracorporeal construction​

Small technical series establish feasibility. In Zhou's 40-patient single-surgeon report, functional assessment was available for 30 patients at six months and 20 at 12 months. Median follow-up was 14 months, median operative time 320 minutes (range 230–500) and estimated blood loss 300 mL (range 100–2,000). The 90-day complication rate was 45%, with high-grade complications in 10%. The 90% satisfactory daytime-continence rate was reported at each visit. Nighttime satisfactory continence was 76.7% at six months and 80.0% at 12 months, and one patient used clean intermittent catheterization.[12]

The 2024 systematic review and atlas identified 19 studies describing nine intracorporeal configurations, but no eligible randomized or comparative cohort studies comparing configurations. Reported perioperative results were broadly similar across series, with important reporting variability; this is insufficient to establish equivalence or a preferred robotic pouch.[13]

Functional Outcomes​

Continence rates depend on the definition, patient selection and the number actually assessed. Separate no pads, a safety pad, daytime control and nighttime control.

Study populationRelevant findings and limits
Ulm 1999: 363 men, 290 functionally evaluableGood daytime and satisfactory nighttime continence were reported by 95.9% and 95%; the adverse category was more than one pad. Some form of intermittent catheterization was used by 3.9% of evaluable patients.[14]
Ulm 2021: 259 men with more than five years of complete follow-up, excluding recurrence, irradiation and undiversionMedian follow-up 121 months, range 60–267. Reported day/night continence was 90%/82%, whereas pad-free rates were 71%/47%. Overall, 87% voided spontaneously and without residual urine.[4]
W-pouch with refluxing short afferent limb: 64 patients surviving at least five yearsReported 75% daytime and 55.3% nighttime pad-free rates among those voiding spontaneously; 12.5% required intermittent or permanent catheterization. Outcomes depend on both the definition and survivor selection.[15]

Function often improves during the first postoperative year, but long-term deterioration, retention and leakage remain possible.[4][16]

Emptying and urodynamic assessment​

The ileal reservoir retains smooth muscle but does not have a native bladder's coordinated detrusor emptying mechanism. Emptying generally requires outlet relaxation and abdominal pressure; some patients need catheterization.[6][9] Assess residual urine and investigate a change in emptying.[6][9]

Capacity, compliance, filling pressure, flow and residual urine must be interpreted together with symptoms and upper-tract findings.A 1998 nonrandomized comparison used different bowel lengths and implantation techniques in its Studer, W and U groups.[17]

Complications and Upper-Tract Protection​

Cystectomy and neobladder construction carry substantial early and late morbidity. The 2011 Ulm analysis included 923 of 1,013 neobladder patients with follow-up beyond 90 days; median follow-up was 72 months. It reported an overall long-term complication rate of 40.8%. Selected 20-year Kaplan–Meier estimates were hydronephrosis 16.9%, incisional hernia 6.4%, febrile UTI 5.7% and ileus/small-bowel obstruction 3.6%.[3]

Late problems include ureteroenteric and urethral-outlet obstruction, incomplete emptying, stones, infection, mucus obstruction, bowel complications, fistula and rare pouch perforation. New abdominal pain, inability to drain, systemic illness or upper-tract change warrants prompt evaluation.[3][18]

When increased drain output raises concern for a urinary leak, comparing drain-fluid creatinine with serum creatinine is a reasonable first step; concentrations similar to serum make a major leak less likely but do not exclude one, since the peritoneum can equilibrate creatinine between spaces. Testing has been suggested when output increases or fails to improve over 48–72 hours, though no validated cutoff is established. Radiographic exclusion of a leak, such as a cystogram, is reasonable before catheter removal. For confirmed suture-line insufficiency, low-pressure drainage and reinsertion of any removed catheters or stents (with nephrostomy if needed) is the initial approach; surgical revision is described as rare.[32]

Reflux versus obstruction​

A freely refluxing anastomosis and an antireflux tunnel have different tradeoffs. For details of the last technique, see Mansoura Neobladder.[7][8]

Hautmann's own group moved from an antireflux ureteral anastomosis to a freely refluxing, open end-to-side implantation in short tubularized segments at each end of the W reservoir after encountering ureteroileal strictures, reporting stenosis falling from 9.5% to 1% with the change.[33] More broadly, an 11-study systematic review and meta-analysis across orthotopic neobladders found antireflux anastomosis associated with significantly more ureteroenteric stricture than direct anastomosis (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.75–4.61), particularly when the ureteral stent was removed within 14 days, and significantly less vesicoureteral reflux (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.59); the pooled renal-function estimate comparing anastomosis types was imprecise (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.18–15.6; I² = 69%).[34] Treat Hautmann's own historical figures as one group's technique-associated experience and the meta-analysis as the stronger, more generalizable evidence on the stricture-versus-reflux tradeoff.[34]

A smaller within-patient randomized study assigned the two ureters of 60 selected neobladder patients to direct chimney or serous-lined antireflux implantation; at a mean 23 months, strictures occurred in one direct and five antireflux units, while measured GFR was similar.[40] The larger USC-STAR trial compared Studer with T-pouch.[19] Of 484 randomized patients, 423 had baseline outcome data and 260 contributed three-year renal data. Mean eGFR decline was 6.4 versus 6.6 mL/min/1.73 m² (p = 0.35); diversion-related secondary intervention was 13% versus 22%, respectively. The formal antireflux T-pouch did not show a renal benefit and required more diversion-related intervention.[19]

Obstruction is a major actionable cause of deterioration. Jin's retrospective analysis selected 161 survivors of at least ten years and found obstruction independently associated with renal decline in both conduit and bladder-substitution groups.[20]

Metabolic and Nutritional Effects​

Acidosis should be monitored even when continence and emptying seem satisfactory. In the Ulm 923-patient cohort, 307 received long-term bicarbonate and 11 had episodes of severe acidosis.[3]

A separate retrospective Studer cohort of 123 patients defined acidosis as serum bicarbonate below 22 mEq/L and found it more frequently early after surgery, with kidney impairment and diabetes among associated factors. In another 345-patient rehabilitation cohort, improved continence was associated with greater alkali requirements during early recovery; the observation supports closer early monitoring.[21][22]

EAU follow-up guidance advises annual vitamin B12 measurement after bowel diversion, because low levels have been reported in 17% of patients with bowel diversion (section 7.4 text; no strength rating).[18] Preserving terminal ileum reduces avoidable loss of absorptive tissue.[18]

Evaluate bone health according to acidosis, renal function and other clinical risk factors.[23]

See Vitamin B12 supplementation, Urinary acidifiers & alkalinizers, and Mucus management.

Reconstruction in Women​

In eligible women, EAU 2026 gives a Strong recommendation for sexual organ preservation when the tissue to be retained is free of tumor.[6] Discuss both leakage and incomplete emptying, including the possibility of long-term catheterization.[24][6][39] These outcomes vary with the retained outlet and pelvic support, surgical approach, patient characteristics and the definition used.[24][6]

  • Historical Ulm experience. 18 women underwent reconstruction, but only 13 were available for complete follow-up. Nine of those 13 required some intermittent catheterization. Two neobladder-vaginal fistula failures were converted to conduits and excluded.[25]
  • Neobladder-vaginal fistula incidence and prevention. In a retrospective series of 249 women with orthotopic neobladders, 14 developed a neobladder–vaginal fistula (5.6%); repair was attempted in 13, closure succeeded in eight, and five ultimately retained the neobladder.[41] A systematic review describes anterior vaginal wall injury or resection and prior pelvic irradiation as possible contributors, without establishing a comparative risk estimate; keep these data separate from the small historical Ulm series above.[42] Described preventive measures include preserving the vagina when oncologically safe, closing an opened vaginal cuff watertight, and interposing omentum around the dependent portion of the pouch, fixed to perivaginal tissue on both sides of the urethral anastomosis, which keeps the neobladder and vaginal suture lines apart and may also suspend the reservoir floor and limit urinary retention from ileal-fold formation; a lateral cystogram before catheter removal is reasonable when early vaginal leakage is suspected. Persistent substantial incontinence beyond the first postoperative weeks should prompt pelvic examination (with intravesical methylene blue if needed) rather than an assumption of spontaneous closure; when a fistula is confirmed, transvaginal repair, abdominal exploration or conversion to a cutaneous diversion may ultimately be required. A separately described operative sequence anchors the longest feasible round-ligament remnants to the lateral vaginal opening to elevate the vaginal neofornix, then brings an omental flap through the left paracolic trough to fix to the round ligament and anterior vaginal wall, with an opening left in the flap at the urethral anastomosis to keep the vaginal closure and urethro-ileal anastomosis separated. None of these measures has been directly compared against another for fistula prevention.[32][35][36]
  • Contemporary broader experience: a 2023 study of 195 women without disease recurrence included 95 followed beyond ten years. Among those 95, chronic retention occurred in 31 (33%) and renal function deteriorated in 46 (49%).[26]
  • Patient-reported outcomes. Bahlburg's prospective rehabilitation cohort enrolled 395 patients, including 38 women; one-year female continence data were available for 25 women. Sixteen reported no more than one safety pad and three reported no pads.[27] Its separate questionnaire-severity category is a different measure.[27]

During female cystectomy, dissecting the urethra about 5 mm below the bladder neck has been described as a landmark: dissecting too close risks losing sphincteric tissue and incontinence, while leaving an excessively long urethral segment may contribute to retention. Gentle palpation of the Foley catheter balloon can help locate the bladder neck before division; a separately described technique instead digitally replaces the catheter balloon during lateral vaginal dissection, retracts it distally to identify the bladder neck, then slowly withdraws the catheter to identify the bladder-neck/urethral transition before placing a clamp and dividing sharply, with a full-thickness urethral margin taken for frozen section.[32][37][36]

Urethral angulation and reservoir descent may contribute to poor emptying. Evaluate the actual outlet, residual urine, reservoir position and pelvic support. Assess associated pelvic support defects as part of the evaluation.[28][6] Retention after female orthotopic substitution has been described as anatomical, functional or multifactorial, with causes including an obstructing ileal valve, loss of posterior support with neocystocele or urethral kinking, reservoir hypercapacity (from excessive ileal length or bladder-neck preservation), infection, failure to relax the pelvic floor, and inadequate abdominal straining pressure; a described basic workup is history and voiding diary, examination, urine testing, kidney/reservoir ultrasonography and post-void residual, with urethropouchoscopy, voiding pouchography, dynamic pelvic-floor MRI or urodynamics reserved for further evaluation rather than ordered routinely in every patient.[36] One group reports routinely performing culdoplasty before orthotopic reconstruction, plicating the uterosacral ligaments with permanent sutures to create a support shelf for the neobladder while leaving room for two fingers beneath it to avoid compressing the sigmoid colon; that group does not routinely use an omental flap for reservoir support. Neither practice has direct comparative outcome data.[38] A distinct round-ligament posterior suspension was tested in a single-center randomized trial of 82 women. At 24 months, intermittent catheterization was needed by 4 of 39 with suspension versus 15 of 37 with standard reconstruction; significant post-void residual occurred in 9 of 39 versus 17 of 37. The trial did not test culdoplasty or omental interposition.[43]

Comparison with Studer and Other Designs​

Lee's retrospective 130-patient comparison included 93 Studer and 37 Hautmann reconstructions. Hautmann procedures were shorter (5.3 versus 5.9 hours) and hospital stay was shorter (7.0 versus 8.3 days) in that historical cohort. Continence differences were not statistically significant. Case selection, anastomotic variations and changing discharge practices prevent treating those findings as a proven intrinsic time advantage or equivalence of function.[29]

Modern intracorporeal evidence still lacks strong direct comparisons among reservoir designs. Discuss the operation a team can perform reliably, its specific emptying and surveillance demands and the patient's priorities, without implying that all named pouches have identical outcomes.[13][5]

Long-Term Surveillance​

Continue functional monitoring beyond intensive cancer surveillance.[18][30]

DomainFollow-up focus
Kidney and metabolic functionCreatinine/eGFR, electrolytes and bicarbonate. AUA/ASCO/SUO Statement 31 advises laboratory assessment every 3–6 months for the first 2–3 years after treatment and then annually, adjusted for clinical need.[30]
Upper tractImaging for obstruction, stones and other abnormalities, coordinated with cancer follow-up; investigate new dilation or renal deterioration.
Emptying and continenceVoiding pattern, residual urine, pad burden, catheterization technique and mucus/drainage problems.
Nutrition and boneEAU advises annual B12 measurement.[18] NCCN post-cystectomy follow-up specifies annual testing after the first year based on clinical judgment (category 2A).[39] Additional evaluation addresses nutritional symptoms, chronic acidosis and bone-health risks.
Retained urethra and cancerRisk-appropriate oncologic follow-up and monitoring of the retained urethra . Symptoms or higher-risk pathology guide additional evaluation rather than one universal urethral-wash schedule.[30]

See Also​

Videos​

Robot-Assisted Intracorporeal W-Configuration Ileal Neobladder
AUA 2019 video session (V06-01)
Ileal W Neobladder
Operative video

References​

1. Hautmann RE, Egghart G, Frohneberg D, Miller K. "The ileal neobladder." J Urol. 1988;139(1):39–42. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42283-x

2. Frohneberg D, Bachor R, Egghart G, Miller K, Hautmann R. Ileal neobladder: principles of function and continence. Eur Urol. 1989;16(4):241–249. PubMed. doi:10.1159/000471584

3. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG. "25 years of experience with 1,000 neobladders: long-term complications." J Urol. 2011;185(6):2207–2212. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.006

4. 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." J Urol. 2021;205(1):174–182. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001345

5. American Urological Association / American Society of Clinical Oncology / Society of Urologic Oncology. Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Amended 2024. Statements 13–14 and discussion, urinary diversion and urethral margins. Guideline PDF.

6. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Disease management, section 6.7.5, urinary diversion. Guideline.

7. Hollowell CM, Christiano AP, Steinberg GD. Technique of Hautmann ileal neobladder with chimney modification: interim results in 50 patients. J Urol. 2000;163(1):47–50. PubMed. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67969-4

8. Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. "A novel uretero-ileal reimplantation technique: the serous-lined extramural tunnel. A preliminary report." J Urol. 1994;151(5):1193–1197. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35211-4

9. Lee YS, Jung HB, Choi DK, et al. "Functional assessment of the Hautmann ileal neobladder with chimney modification using uroflowmetry and a questionnaire." Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8209589. doi:10.1155/2016/8209589

10. Lippert MC, Theodorescu D. The Hautmann neobladder with a chimney: a versatile modification. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1510–1512. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64255-1.

11. Sevin G, Soyupek S, Armağan A, Hoşcan MB, Oksay T. "Ileal orthotopic neobladder (modified Hautmann) via a shorter detubularized ileal segment: experience and results." BJU Int. 2004;94(3):355–359. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04933.x

12. Zhou X, Zheng J, He P, et al. "Refinement surgical technique, and perioperative and functional outcomes in patients with robotic intracorporeal Hautmann orthotopic neobladder." Urology. 2020;138:45–51. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.025

13. 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." Eur Urol. 2024;85(4):348–360. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.017

14. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi R, Gottfried HW, et al. "The ileal neobladder: complications and functional results in 363 patients after 11 years of followup." J Urol. 1999;161(2):422–427. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)61909-8

15. Minervini A, Mariani C, Pagni R, et al. "Long-term functional outcomes in patients with a W-shaped ileal orthotopic neobladder with no antireflux mechanism." Urology. 2013;82(4):928–932. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.05.030

16. Soulié M, Seguin P, Mouly P, et al. "Assessment of morbidity and functional results in bladder replacement with Hautmann ileal neobladder after radical cystectomy: a clinical experience in 55 highly selected patients." Urology. 2001;58(5):707–711. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01354-1

17. Minervini R, Morelli G, Fontana N, Minervini A, Fiorentini L. "Functional evaluation of different ileal neobladders and ureteral reimplantation techniques." Eur Urol. 1998;34(3):198–202. doi:10.1159/000019712

18. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Follow-up, section 7.4, functional outcomes and complications. Guideline.

19. 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

20. Jin XD, Roethlisberger S, Burkhard FC, et al. "Long-term renal function after urinary diversion by ileal conduit or orthotopic ileal bladder substitution." Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):491–497. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.004

21. Kim KH, Yoon HS, Yoon H, et al. "Risk factors for developing metabolic acidosis after radical cystectomy and ileal neobladder." PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158220

22. Müller G, Butea-Bocu M, Brock O, et al. "Association between development of metabolic acidosis and improvement of urinary continence after ileal neobladder creation." J Urol. 2020;203(3):585–590. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000583

23. Studer UE, Burkhard FC, Schumacher M, et al. "Twenty years experience with an ileal orthotopic low-pressure bladder substitute — lessons to be learned." J Urol. 2006;176(1):161–166. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00573-8

24. Anderson CB, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al. "Voiding function in women with orthotopic neobladder urinary diversion." J Urol. 2012;188(1):200–204. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.004

25. Hautmann RE, Paiss T, de Petriconi R. "The ileal neobladder in women: 9 years of experience with 18 patients." J Urol. 1996;155(1):76–81. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)66546-7

26. Zahran MH, Harraz AM, Baset MA, et al. "Voiding and renal function 10 years after radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder in women." BJU Int. 2023;132(3):291–297. doi:10.1111/bju.16011

27. Bahlburg H, Schuster F, Tully KH, et al. "Prospective evaluation of functional outcomes in 395 patients with an ileal neobladder 1 year after radical cystectomy." World J Urol. 2023;41(9):2367–2374. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04520-x

28. Arai Y, Okubo K, Konami T, et al. "Voiding function of orthotopic ileal neobladder in women." Urology. 1999;54(1):44–49. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00027-8

29. Lee KS, Montie JE, Dunn RL, Lee CT. "Hautmann and Studer orthotopic neobladders: a contemporary experience." J Urol. 2003;169(6):2188–2191. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000063941.31687.26

30. American Urological Association / American Society of Clinical Oncology / Society of Urologic Oncology. Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Amended 2024. Statements 31–32 and discussion, laboratory follow-up and retained urethra. Guideline PDF.

31. Hautmann RE. Ileal Neobladder. In: Montague DK, Gill IS, Angermeier KW, Ross JH, eds. Textbook of Reconstructive Urologic Surgery. Informa Healthcare; 2008:311-318.

32. Meisterhofer K, Amend B, Stenzl A. Complications in Orthotopic Neobladders. In: Hoffman M, Hull TL, Bochner BH, eds. Major Complications of Female Pelvic Surgery: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Springer; 2025:137-144. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66772-5_14

33. Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG, Schumacher MC, Gschwend JE, Studer UE. "Long-Term Results of Standard Procedures in Urology: The Ileal Neobladder." World J Urol. 2006;24(3):305-314. doi:10.1007/s00345-006-0105-z

34. Zhang Y, Ding H, Zhang Y, et al. "Is Anti-Reflux Anastomosis an Advantage in an Orthotopic Ileal Neobladder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Urol Int. 2023;107(1):1-14. doi:10.1159/000525017

35. Ghodoussipour S, Daneshmand S. Continent Urinary Diversion. In: Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, eds. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 13th ed. Elsevier; 2025:2812-2842.

36. Gakis G. Orthotopic Urinary Diversion in Women. In: Daneshmand S, ed. Urinary Diversion. Springer; 2017:25-37. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52186-2_3

37. Amend B, Meisterhofer K, Bedke J, Stenzl A. Use and Complications of Neobladder and Continent Urinary Diversion in Female Pelvic Cancer. In: Martins FE, Holm HV, Sandhu JS, McCammon KA, eds. Female Genitourinary and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. Springer; 2023:1099-1125. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_60

38. Boorjian SA, Blute ML. Orthotopic Urinary Diversion in the Female Patient. In: Montague DK, Gill IS, Angermeier KW, Ross JH, eds. Textbook of Reconstructive Urologic Surgery. Informa Healthcare; 2008:349-357.

39. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Bladder Cancer. Version 3.2026. August 6, 2026. BL-E 3–4 of 6; Discussion MS-18. Guideline.

40. Shaaban AA, Abdel-Latif M, Mosbah A, et al. "A randomized study comparing an antireflux system with a direct ureteric anastomosis in patients with orthotopic ileal neobladders." BJU Int. 2006;97(5):1057–1062. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06135.x

41. Rosenberg S, Miranda G, Ginsberg DA. "Neobladder–vaginal fistula: The University of Southern California experience." Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(4):1380–1385. doi:10.1002/nau.23454

42. Richter LA, Egan J, Alagha EC, Handa VL. "Vaginal Complications after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review." Urology. 2021;156:e20-e29. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.001

43. Zhou X, He P, Ji H, et al. "Round ligament suspending treatment in orthotopic ileal-neobladder after radical cystectomy in women: a single-centre prospective randomised trial." BJU Int. 2021;128(2):187–195. doi:10.1111/bju.15306