Skip to main content

Principles of Urinary Diversion

Urinary diversion is the set of reconstructive operations used when the native bladder is removed, bypassed, or no longer suitable for safe storage and emptying. In modern practice, the major families are ileal conduit, orthotopic neobladder, continent cutaneous diversion[50], and cutaneous ureterostomy.[1][2][3][4]

The principles that unify these operations are simpler than the number of named procedures suggests: build a low-pressure reservoir when continence is desired, protect the upper tracts at the ureteroenteric junction, choose bowel according to physiology and patient context, match the continence mechanism to what the patient can actually manage, and commit to lifelong metabolic and structural surveillance.[5][6][7]

For the named diversion library, use the database on the Urinary Diversion landing page.

1. Diversion Type Must Match the Clinical Goal​

Before discussing bowel segments or anastomoses, the surgeon has to decide what problem the diversion is solving:

  • simple continuous drainage with the lowest operative burden,
  • continent orthotopic storage with urethral emptying,
  • continent cutaneous storage with catheterizable emptying,
  • or a simpler diversion when operative burden matters in a high-risk patient.[1][2][3][4]

That decision usually places the patient into one of four buckets:

Diversion familyPrimary design goal
Ileal conduitSimple dependable incontinent drainage
Orthotopic neobladderContinence per native urethra
Continent cutaneous diversionContinence without a urethral outlet
Cutaneous ureterostomyAvoid an intestinal segment in selected frail or solitary-kidney patients; preserve drainage and stomal patency while monitoring for stenosis, which is more frequent than with bowel stomas[22]

Each family carries different requirements for sphincter integrity, manual dexterity, bowel use, metabolic tolerance, and follow-up burden.[1][2][8]

2. Detubularization Is the Core Reservoir Principle​

For most contemporary continent bowel reservoirs, detubularization opens the selected segment (usually along its antimesenteric border) to reduce coordinated bowel contractions.[5][6]

  • intact bowel behaves like bowel and generates coordinated high-pressure contractions,
  • detubularized bowel behaves more like a compliant pouch,
  • and reservoir pressure falls while capacity rises.[5][6]

Schmidbauer’s work and Hinman’s classic physiologic framework established why this is true: detubularization improves compliance, reduces organized peristaltic pressure spikes, and creates a geometry that supports low-pressure storage.[5][6]

For hand-sewn bowel-stump closure, see the Parker-Kerr stitch and Bowel Anastomosis technique pages.

3. Spherical Reconfiguration Maximizes Volume While Minimizing Pressure​

The bowel has to be reconfigured into a rounded, near-spherical reservoir rather than left as a long tube or a poorly folded sac.[6][9][10]

A rounded reservoir increases volume for the available bowel surface. Laplace’s relationship describes pressure, radius and wall tension for an idealized geometry; it does not hold the actual tissue tension constant as the reservoir fills. Bowel compliance, contraction and emptying remain important, and final storage safety requires functional assessment.[6][10]

This principle explains why continent urinary diversion and bladder augmentation share so much reservoir design logic. In both settings, the surgeon is trying to create the same thing:

a low-pressure, high-capacity reservoir that does not transmit harmful pressure to the kidneys.

4. Bowel Segment Selection Is a Physiologic Choice​

The choice of bowel segment determines both technical handling and long-term metabolic behavior.[2][7][11]

Practical segment logic​

SegmentMain advantageMain limitation
IleumTechnically versatile, mobile mesentery, most familiar for conduit and neobladderHyperchloremic metabolic acidosis; terminal ileum loss risks B12 deficiency[7][11]
Right colon / ileocecal segmentUseful for continent cutaneous reservoirs; ileocecal valve may contribute to outlet continence, while ureteral antireflux protection is a separate constructionLarger-caliber bowel with metabolic and handling constraints; retrospective interviews found diarrhea lasting >6 months in 8/35 after ileocecal versus 7/65 after ileal resection[12][13][56]
Transverse colonCan be helpful when prior pelvic radiation makes distal bowel less attractiveMore complex mobilization; not first-line in most routine diversions[2][14]
JejunumRare historical use onlySevere electrolyte derangements make it a poor routine diversion segment[7]
StomachRare historical nicheAlkalosis and hematuria-dysuria syndrome limit modern use[7]

Ileum is commonly used, but segment choice depends on the actual reconstruction, bowel health, prior resection or radiation, mesenteric reach, and renal and metabolic tolerance.

Transverse colon conduit has been described in irradiated pelves because it uses non-irradiated bowel and ureter. In a series of 30 patients treated with at least 65 Gy, there were no anastomotic leaks, the complication rate was 37% and the reoperation rate was 20%; among those with renal failure, postoperative serum creatinine was normal or improved in 83%.[14]

5. The Ureteroenteric Anastomosis Is the Achilles Heel​

In bowel-based diversions, the ureteroenteric anastomosis is an important site of obstruction and renal risk.[3][15][16] The central tradeoff is familiar:

  • an antireflux construction may add obstruction risk,
  • refluxing implantation requires a low-pressure, freely draining system.

The main design tension​

StrategyStrengthWeakness
Refluxing implantationSimpler, lower stricture burden in many seriesAllows free reflux
Formal anti-reflux implantationBetter reflux controlStricture risk varies by construction and cohort: Le Duc exceeded Wallace in one 953-patient series, whereas an older two-center review reported fewer stenoses after introducing nonrefluxing implantation[16][20]
Studer afferent limbSeparates ureteral implantation from the storage reservoir without a formal tunnel—

In 953 open ileal neobladders, the 10-year ureteroenteric stricture rate with undilated ureters was 2.4% for the refluxing Wallace technique and 14.2% for the nonrefluxing Le Duc technique. With preoperatively obstructed ureters the rates were 7.6% and 35.5%. Preoperative ureteral dilation was a specific risk factor for stricture with either technique.[16]

Regardless of the named technique, the enduring surgical principles are the same:

  • preserve ureteral blood supply,
  • avoid excessive ureteral devascularization,
  • spatulate adequately,
  • create a tension-free watertight anastomosis,
  • and stent temporarily when appropriate.[3][15][16][17]

Perfusion assessment can help select viable tissue. If both ureters appear poorly perfused with ICG, check blood pressure and repeat imaging after correcting hypotension before deciding on further resection.[51] Yeaman 2024 prospectively assessed 55 SPY-guided cases against 277 historical controls: patient-level strictures were 1/55 versus 31/277.[17] Median follow-up was 17.5 versus 58.6 months, respectively.[17] A 2025 meta-analysis of 11 studies (1,339 patients) spanning open and minimally invasive cystectomy associated ICG-guided ureteral resection with fewer strictures, but graded certainty low.[51] A four-study meta-analysis restricted to robot-assisted cystectomy (732 patients) found no clear stricture difference with intravenous ICG use.[52]

The ureter is resected to viable tissue while preserving tension-free reach. Das 2024 found an association between greater distal resection and fewer strictures; Richards 2015 did not. See Ileal Conduit — Distal Ureter: Perfusion and Reach.[18][19]

For the management of established ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures (endoscopic, open, robotic, ICG-guided revision, ileal bypass), see Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Stricture Repair; the repair operations are described in the upper tract reconstruction section.

6. Continence Mechanism Determines How the Patient Will Live With the Diversion​

The continence mechanism differs fundamentally across diversion families.

Orthotopic neobladder​

Continence depends on the native urethral sphincter complex, reservoir behavior and emptying. Patients usually use timed voiding with pelvic-floor relaxation and abdominal pressure; some require intermittent catheterization, including patients initially expected to void spontaneously.[15][20][21][50] A 2024 pooled analysis of female neobladder series reported intermittent self-catheterization in 27.6% after traditional, 20.6% after reproductive-organ-preserving and 16.8% after nerve-sparing cystectomy; these were nonrandomized comparisons.[55]

Evaluate urethral preservation before choosing an orthotopic neobladder; in women, bladder-neck biopsy before cystectomy helps assess urethral tumor risk.[22] EAU makes a strong recommendation against orthotopic diversion when an invasive tumor is in the urethra or at the level of urethral dissection.[22] Multifocal CIS, non-muscle-invasive prostatic urethral disease, or bladder-neck involvement should not automatically be equated with mandatory urethrectomy; exact extent, margins and surveillance determine candidacy. The AUA/ASCO/SUO guideline requires that a negative urethral margin be verified in every patient receiving an orthotopic diversion .[35] Its discussion of Statement 11 states that women who do not receive a neobladder should undergo urethrectomy to reduce the likelihood of a positive margin or recurrence.[35] See Urethrectomy.[22][35]

NCCN describes prostatic-duct CIS and a positive urethral margin as relative contraindications to urethral drainage. The AUA requirement to verify a negative urethral margin remains a distinct guideline position.[50][35]

Preserving the uterus and vagina can maintain support for a neobladder and urethro-ileal alignment. In a retrospective series of women who had undergone hysterectomy, 7/19 (37%) required intermittent catheterization; neocystocele and urethral kinking were associated with retention, but the series did not compare organ-sparing procedures.[36][22] Sparing the anterior vaginal wall also limits injury to the neurovascular bundles that run along the lateral vaginal walls, which has been associated with better-preserved sexual function.[37] NCCN recommends preservation of the uterus, vagina or ovaries when feasible in appropriately selected patients (category 2A), without limiting eligibility to young, sexually active women.[50] In a single-center series, preoperative hydronephrosis and a palpable mass were associated with reproductive-organ involvement; pathologically positive nodes at exenteration were also associated but could not guide preoperative selection.[38] The AUA/ASCO/SUO guideline allows gynecologic organ sparing to be considered in selected women with early-stage disease who wish to preserve fertility or sexual function when complete tumor resection can be achieved.[35] The 2026 EAU guideline strongly recommends sexual organ-preserving techniques in eligible women when the area to be preserved is free of tumor.[22] Document cervical cancer-screening history and investigate abnormal vaginal bleeding before gynecologic organ preservation.[22] High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia requires separate assessment rather than automatic organ removal.[54] The EAU strongly recommends preservation only when the tissue to be spared is free of tumor.[22]

Vaginal complications after cystectomy are under-recognized. In a Medicare sample of 481 women 65 years or older undergoing cystectomy for any indication (83% with an incontinent conduit or catheterizable-channel diversion, not predominantly neobladder), 19.5% had at least one vaginal complication on record within 2 years, most often vaginal cuff dehiscence (10.2%); over the full study period, 21.2% of women were diagnosed with a vaginal complication and 26% of those received an intervention.[42] A separate systematic review found neobladder-vaginal fistula, usually along the anterior vaginal wall at the neobladder-urethral anastomosis, in 3–6% of patients at higher-volume centers.[43]

The analogous functional, reconstructive-consequence consideration in men is nerve-sparing cystectomy, using the same neurovascular-bundle-preservation technique lateral to the prostatic capsule described for radical prostatectomy, to support erectile function recovery and continence with an orthotopic neobladder.[39] Some centers have described prostate- or prostate-capsule-sparing cystectomy for the same functional goals, but this should be considered only in highly selected men because of the risk of missing incidental prostate adenocarcinoma or urothelial carcinoma involving the prostate: incidental prostate adenocarcinoma was found in 50/121 (41%) and 37.9% of 1,476 cystoprostatectomy specimens in the cited series (clinically significant in 8.3% of the larger cohort), and urothelial involvement of the prostate carries its own oncologic implications.[40][41] The current AUA/ASCO/SUO muscle-invasive bladder cancer guideline frames sexual-function-preserving technique, like gynecologic organ preservation in women, as something to discuss with appropriately selected, motivated patients rather than a default approach.[35]

Prior radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer does not rule out a later orthotopic neobladder, but the vesicourethral-junction dissection can be difficult; intraoperative flexible cystoscopy can help identify the prior anastomosis and confirm removal of bladder tissue.[44] In a single-center series of 24 men who underwent neobladder reconstruction after prior prostatectomy, 11 of 19 evaluable patients (57.9%) regained good continence (0–1 pad/day) within a year of cystectomy; among the 13 with good continence after prostatectomy, 11 (84.6%) regained that level. Three patients with poor or fair continence after prostatectomy received an artificial urinary sphincter (two at cystectomy and one afterward), and adjuvant radiotherapy after prostatectomy appeared to worsen the chance of regaining good continence.[45]

When a woman's catheterization ability is uncertain because of obesity or difficult anatomy and the diversion under consideration may require intermittent catheterization, having her demonstrate self-catheterization before the final decision is a practical assessment used by some surgeons.[44]

For a man being considered for conversion from an existing cutaneous diversion to an orthotopic reservoir, preoperative urethroscopy has been described to assess urethral patency, visualize the membranous urethra, assess sphincter coaptation, and identify a retained prostatic apex or verumontanum; a retained apex may allow a more proximal urethral anastomosis, while its absence increases the chance that the patient will need an artificial urinary sphincter. If prostatic tissue remains, ongoing PSA monitoring and examination for prostate cancer surveillance is advised.[47] In one single-center cohort, 51 second or third urinary diversions were required in 48 of 1,614 cystectomy patients (3.0%) over a mean interval of 57 months; the need for repeat diversion was far less common after a cancer-related primary indication (1.8%) than after a non-oncologic indication (25%), and the series recorded 4 perioperative deaths and 1 case of short bowel syndrome among the repeat-diversion patients.[46]

Continent cutaneous diversion​

Continence depends on a valve mechanism:

  • ileocecal valve-based systems,
  • intussuscepted nipple valves,
  • or catheterizable-channel flap-valve systems.[12][23][24]

Ileal conduit and cutaneous ureterostomy​

These are intentionally incontinent systems. Their success is judged by dependable drainage and low complication burden, not by urine storage.

The mechanism chosen is the one the patient can realistically manage for life.

7. Patient Selection Is as Important as Operative Technique​

There is no universally best diversion. The correct diversion is the one that matches the patient’s oncologic status, anatomy, physiology, dexterity, cognition, support system, and goals.[2][4][15][25]

Questions that should be answered before choosing diversion​

  1. Can the urethra be preserved safely?
  2. Is the sphincter reliable enough for orthotopic diversion?
  3. Can the patient catheterize if needed?
  4. Can the patient tolerate the bowel segment and metabolic burden?
  5. Would a simpler incontinent diversion actually serve this patient better?

Age, comorbidity, renal function, hepatic function, prior radiation, bowel disease, and cognitive and manual capacity all shift the answer.[2][4][15][25] EAU 2026 lists high-dose preoperative radiotherapy, complex urethral strictures, and severe urethral sphincter-related incontinence as relative contraindications to orthotopic neobladder.[22] The AUA/ASCO/SUO guideline states that ileal conduit, continent cutaneous and orthotopic neobladder diversion should all be discussed with a patient undergoing radical cystectomy .[35] Its discussion lists the absolute contraindications to continent diversion as insufficient bowel length, inadequate motor function or psychological issues that prevent self-catheterization, inadequate renal or hepatic function (for example an eGFR below 45), cancer at the urethral margin (for a neobladder) and uncorrectable significant urethral stricture disease.[35] In a multicenter cohort of 6,469 cystectomies, older age, comorbidity and advanced disease were associated with cutaneous ureterostomy and with less neobladder use, and ureterostomy use rose from 2% to 22% over two decades.[3] In NSQIP data, continent diversion use declined over 2008–2022.[4]

8. Anticipate Metabolic Consequences​

Whenever bowel mucosa is exposed to urine, the reconstruction creates a chronic absorptive / secretory interface that changes serum chemistry and stone risk.[7][11][26]

The major long-term issues​

  • Hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis with ileal and colonic diversions
  • Vitamin B12 deficiency risk depending on ileal loss and underlying absorption
  • Bone demineralization from chronic acidosis
  • Urolithiasis from low volume, altered pH, hypocitraturia, and other metabolic changes
  • Rare ammoniagenic encephalopathy in susceptible patients, especially with hepatic dysfunction[7][11][26][27]

These risks inform the choice of diversion and require lifelong monitoring.

9. Stoma Planning and Perioperative Optimization Are Part of the Reconstruction​

Preoperative site marking and patient education are associated with fewer stoma complications and better self-care in ostomy studies. ASCRS 2022 recommends marking by a trained provider when possible and education by a specialized provider (both strong recommendations, moderate-quality evidence), and suggests a perioperative care pathway for new ileostomies to reduce readmission . Its scope excludes urostomies, so these are fecal-stoma data.[28][29]

The principles include:

  • preoperative marking by an experienced WOC nurse,
  • realistic counseling about appliance care or catheterization,
  • ERAS-style bowel and postoperative management (EAU makes strong recommendations against preoperative bowel preparation, for fast-track measures to shorten time to bowel recovery, and for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis starting the first day after surgery for at least four weeks),[34]
  • and proactive dehydration prevention in the early postoperative period.[28][29]

Site marking, counseling and pathway design are associated with how well the diversion functions in daily life.

Intraoperative fluid strategy is also part of this package. In a single-center, double-blind randomized trial of 166 patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion, restrictive deferred crystalloid combined with preemptive norepinephrine infusion reduced in-hospital complications compared with standard crystalloid infusion (52% vs 73%, relative risk 0.70), including large reductions in gastrointestinal and cardiac complications, and shortened median hospitalization (15 vs 17 days).[48] At one year in the orthotopic-neobladder subgroup, daytime continence was 44/51 (86%) versus 27/42 (64%); erectile-function recovery among preoperatively potent patients was 26/33 (79%) versus 11/29 (38%) in the restrictive/norepinephrine and standard-fluid groups, respectively.[49] It supports restrictive, vasopressor-supported intraoperative fluid management as a component of the perioperative pathway.[48][49]

10. Plan Lifelong Functional Follow-up​

All urinary diversions require indefinite follow-up because many clinically important complications are silent until they are advanced.[11][13]

After cystectomy for NMIBC or MIBC, NCCN specifies electrolytes and creatinine every 3–6 months in year 1, then annually in years 2–5 (category 2A).[50] The AUA/ASCO/SUO guideline advises laboratory assessment every 3–6 months for 2–3 years and then annually after MIBC treatment .[35] See Renal Function and Metabolic Surveillance for the source-specific follow-up schedules.

Core surveillance domains​

  • Upper-tract imaging for hydronephrosis, stones, or silent obstruction
  • Renal function monitoring
  • Electrolytes and bicarbonate
  • Annual vitamin B12 measurement after bowel diversion, advised in the EAU follow-up text (low levels reported in 17% of patients with bowel diversion; no strength rating)[30]. The AUA/ASCO/SUO guideline discussion advises checking B12 in follow-up because the risk of deficiency is increased after resection of more than 60 cm of ileum or use of the terminal ileum[35]. NCCN post-cystectomy follow-up specifies annual B12 testing after the first year based on clinical judgment (category 2A)[50]
  • Bone-health surveillance when chronic acidosis risk is present
  • Reservoir / conduit imaging or endoscopy when leaks, stones, strictures, or recurrent infection are suspected[7][11][13]

In a 131-patient ileal-conduit cohort restricted to survivors of at least five years, conduit-related complications occurred in 45% within five years; among those surviving more than 15 years, 94% had complications.[30][53] Follow-up intensity is individualized to the reconstruction, renal risk and clinical change. Functional follow-up continues separately from oncologic follow-up. Routine cystoscopy in asymptomatic bowel reservoirs depends on the disease-specific surveillance plan; concerning symptoms warrant investigation.

11. Shared Decision-Making Is a Reconstructive Principle, Not a Soft Add-On​

Quality-of-life studies do not support a single universally superior diversion for every patient.[15][31][32][33] Some patients prioritize body image and freedom from an appliance. Others prioritize simplicity, lower revision burden, or avoidance of self-catheterization.

The best diversion fits:

  • the patient’s cancer,
  • the patient’s physiology,
  • the patient’s capabilities,
  • and the patient’s preferences.[2][15][33]

Core Principles at a Glance​

  1. Choose the diversion family according to the actual clinical goal.
  2. Use detubularization and appropriate geometry for the intended reservoir design.
  3. Reconfigure the reservoir into a rounded low-pressure shape.
  4. Match bowel segment choice to technical and metabolic needs.
  5. Treat the ureteroenteric anastomosis as the vulnerability of the reconstruction.
  6. Choose a continence mechanism the patient can realistically manage.
  7. Select patients carefully for continent diversion.
  8. Anticipate and monitor metabolic sequelae lifelong.
  9. Optimize stoma planning and perioperative care as part of the reconstruction.
  10. Commit to lifelong surveillance of the upper tracts, renal function, and reservoir.
  11. Use shared decision-making to match the diversion to the patient.

Discuss open and robotic approaches in the context of center experience, patient needs and the planned diversion. EAU strongly recommends informing patients of the advantages and disadvantages of open and robotic cystectomy and selecting centers by experience rather than technique, and makes no recommendation for intracorporeal over extracorporeal diversion.[34] See the dedicated Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion (ICUD) page for technique and outcomes.[22]

See Also​

Podcasts​

Update Series (2026): Perioperative Management of Urinary Diversion
AUAUniversity Podcast, Ep. 354 (2026)
cme.auanet.org
The Terrible Urological 5: Time for Cystectomy & Urinary Diversion
BackTable Urology, Ep. 161 (2024) · Drew Peterson, Suzette Sutherland
backtable.com

Videos​

Robotic-Assisted Ileal Conduit
Grand Rounds in Urology (2025)

References​

1. Khosla AA, Mendhiratta N, Jatwani K. Urinary diversion after cystectomy for bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.3644

2. Lenis AT, Lec PM, Chamie K, Mshs MD. Bladder cancer: a review. JAMA. 2020;324(19):1980-1991. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17598

3. Pellegrino F, de Angelis M, Scilipoti P, et al. Temporal trends and clinical determinants of urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2026;137(2):323-331. doi:10.1111/bju.70018

4. Zein M, Sebai T, AlJardali B, et al. The changing landscape of urinary diversion post cystectomy: a 15-year analysis of the NSQIP database. Urol Oncol. 2026;44(1):63.e13-63.e20. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.09.013

5. Schmidbauer CP, Chiang H, Raz S. The impact of detubularization on ileal reservoirs. J Urol. 1987;138(6):1440-1445. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)43671-8

6. Hinman F. Selection of intestinal segments for bladder substitution: physical and physiological characteristics. J Urol. 1988;139(3):519-523. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)42509-2

7. Roth JD, Koch MO. Metabolic and nutritional consequences of urinary diversion using intestinal segments to reconstruct the urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am. 2018;45(1):19-24. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.007

8. Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, Bex A, et al. Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):834-842. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.008

9. Bianchi G, Sighinolfi MC, Pirola GM, Micali S. Studer orthotopic neobladder: a modified surgical technique. Urology. 2016;88:222-225. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.020

10. Basford JR. The law of Laplace and its relevance to contemporary medicine and rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(8):1165-1170. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.33985

11. Sperling CD, Lee DJ, Aggarwal S. Urinary diversion: core curriculum 2021. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(2):293-304. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.12.023

12. Pearce SM, Daneshmand S. Continent cutaneous diversion. Urol Clin North Am. 2018;45(1):55-65. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2017.09.004

13. Moomjian LN, Carucci LR, Guruli G, Klausner AP. Follow the stream: imaging of urinary diversions. Radiographics. 2016;36(3):688-709. doi:10.1148/rg.2016150180

14. Ravi R, Dewan AK, Pandey KK. Transverse colon conduit urinary diversion in patients treated with very high dose pelvic irradiation. Br J Urol. 1994;73(1):51-54. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1994.tb07455.x

15. Lee RK, Abol-Enein H, Artibani W, et al. Urinary diversion after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: options, patient selection, and outcomes. BJU Int. 2014;113(1):11-23. doi:10.1111/bju.12121

16. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi R, Kahlmeyer A, Enders M, Volkmer B. Preoperatively dilated ureters are a specific risk factor for the development of ureteroenteric strictures after open radical cystectomy and ileal neobladder. J Urol. 2017;198(5):1098-1106. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.069

17. Yeaman C, Ignozzi G, Kazeem A, et al. Impact of SPY fluorescence angiography on incidence of ureteroenteric stricture after urinary diversion. J Urol. 2024;212(6):844-850. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004198

18. Das A, Zeng E, Risk M, et al. Shorter ureters lead to fewer strictures following cystectomy and urinary diversion. Urology. 2024;184:272–277. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.12.005.

19. Richards KA, Cohn JA, Large MC, et al. The effect of length of ureteral resection on benign ureterointestinal stricture rate. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:65.e1–8. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.05.015.

20. 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

21. 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

22. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Sections 5.4 to 5.5 and 6.7.5.b to 6.7.5.d, urethral assessment, patient selection and diversion. Guideline.

23. 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

24. Kirsch AJ, Hensle TW, Olsson CA. Absorbable stapling techniques in continent urinary diversion. World J Urol. 1996;14(2):117-121. doi:10.1007/BF00182569

25. Schmid M, Rink M, Traumann M, et al. Evidence from the PROMETRICS 2011 study: how are preoperative patient characteristics associated with urinary diversion type after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):1032-1042. doi:10.1245/s10434-014-4029-3

26. Cruz DN, Huot SJ. Metabolic complications of urinary diversions: an overview. Am J Med. 1997;102(5):477-484. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00020-X

27. Marien T, Robles J, Kammann TM, et al. Characterization of urolithiasis in patients following lower urinary tract reconstruction with intestinal segments. J Endourol. 2017;31(3):217-222. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0297

28. Davis BR, Valente MA, Goldberg JE, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(10):1173-1190. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000002498

29. Burgess-Stocks J, Gleba J, Lawrence K, Mueller S. Ostomy and continent diversion patient bill of rights: research validation of standards of care. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2022;49(3):251-260. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000876

30. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. 2026. Section 7.4, follow-up of functional outcomes and complications. Guideline.

31. Clements MB, Atkinson TM, Dalbagni GM, et al. Health-related quality of life for patients undergoing radical cystectomy: results of a large prospective cohort. Eur Urol. 2022;81(3):294-304. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2021.09.018

32. Kern SQ, Speir RW, Tong Y, et al. Longitudinal health related quality of life after open radical cystectomy: comparison of ileal conduit, Indiana pouch, and orthotopic neobladder. Urology. 2021;152:184-189. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.036

33. Trzciniecki M, Kowal P, Kołodziej J, Szydełko T, Kołodziej A. Choosing between orthotopic neobladder and ileal conduit after radical cystectomy: tools for assessing patient-specific characteristics and enhancing the decision-making process-a review of current studies. J Clin Med. 2024;13(12):3506. doi:10.3390/jcm13123506

34. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. March 2026 update. Sections 6.7.4, 6.7.5.c, 6.7.5.d and 6.7.9, robotic cystectomy, perioperative care and quality indicators. Guideline.

35. Holzbeierlein J, Bixler BR, Buckley DI, et al. Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/SUO Guideline (2017; Amended 2020, 2024). J Urol. 2024;212(1):3-10. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003981

36. Finley DS, Lee U, McDonough D, Raz S, deKernion J. Urinary retention after orthotopic neobladder substitution in females. J Urol. 2011;186(4):1364-1369. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.069

37. Bhatt A, Nandipati K, Dhar N, et al. Neurovascular preservation in orthotopic cystectomy: impact on female sexual function. Urology. 2006;67(4):742-745. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.015

38. Djaladat H, Bruins HM, Miranda G, et al. Reproductive organ involvement in female patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2134-2138. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.024

39. Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Studer UE. Clinical indications and outcomes with nerve-sparing cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32(2):165-175. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2005.02.005

40. Revelo MP, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al. Incidence and location of prostate and urothelial carcinoma in prostates from cystoprostatectomies: implications for possible apical sparing surgery. J Urol. 2008;179(5 Suppl):S27-32. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.134

41. Bruins HM, Djaladat H, Ahmadi H, et al. Incidental prostate cancer in patients with bladder urothelial carcinoma: comprehensive analysis of 1,476 radical cystoprostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1704-1709. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.034

42. Richter LA, Osazuwa-Peters OL, Routh JC, Handa VL. Vaginal complications after cystectomy: results from a Medicare sample. J Urol. 2022;207(4):789-796. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002336

43. 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

44. Skinner EC. Patient selection for urinary diversion. In: Daneshmand S, ed. Urinary Diversion. Springer; 2017:1–10. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52186-2_1

45. Huang EY, Skinner EC, Boyd SD, Cai J, Miranda G, Daneshmand S. Radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder reconstruction following prior radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2012;30(6):741-745. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0861-x

46. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi R, Schwarz J, Volkmer B. Single center experience with secondary urinary diversion after initial radical cystectomy and primary urinary diversion. J Urol. 2016;195(2):406-412. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.086

47. Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG. Considerations for urinary re-diversion. In: Daneshmand S, ed. Urinary Diversion. Springer; 2017:171–180. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52186-2_12

48. Wuethrich PY, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Stueber F, Studer UE. Restrictive deferred hydration combined with preemptive norepinephrine infusion during radical cystectomy reduces postoperative complications and hospitalization time: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiology. 2014;120(2):365-377. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182a44440

49. Burkhard FC, Studer UE, Wuethrich PY. Superior functional outcome after radical cystectomy and orthotopic bladder substitution with restrictive intraoperative fluid management: a followup study of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2015;193(1):173-178. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.109

50. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Bladder Cancer. Version 3.2026. August 6, 2026. BL-B 2 of 4; BL-E 3–4 of 6; Discussion MS-18. Guideline.

51. Haney CM, Studier-Fischer A, Geissler ME, et al. "Indocyanine-guided ureter resection for radical cystectomy – a systematic review and meta-analysis." BJU Int. 2025;135(6):908-917. doi:10.1111/bju.16707

52. Fan G, Wu Y, Wang J, et al. "Comparative perioperative outcomes of intravenous indocyanine green during robot-assisted cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review." J Robot Surg. 2025;19(1):7. doi:10.1007/s11701-024-02171-7

53. Madersbacher S, et al. "Long-term outcome of ileal conduit diversion." J Urol. 2003;169(3):985-990. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000051462.45388.14

54. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al. "2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors." J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24(2):102-131. doi:10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

55. Laukhtina E, von Deimling M, Pradere B, et al. "Urinary function in female patients after traditional, organ-sparing and nerve-sparing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review and pooled analysis." BJU Int. 2024;133(3):246-258. doi:10.1111/bju.16152

56. Roth S, Semjonow A, Waldner M, Hertle L. "Risk of bowel dysfunction with diarrhea after continent urinary diversion with ileal and ileocecal segments." J Urol. 1995;154(5):1696-1699. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66754-5