You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction/Diversion: Ureter (including Pyeloplasty) and Bladder Reconstruction (including fistula), Augmentation, Substitution, Diversion II (MP53)1 Sep 2021MP53-12 CUTANEOUS URETEROSTOMY: WHAT ONCE WAS OLD IS NEW AGAIN Randy Casals, Tyler Overholt, Adil Siddique, Alexander Tsivian, and Matvey Tsivian Randy CasalsRandy Casals More articles by this author , Tyler OverholtTyler Overholt More articles by this author , Adil SiddiqueAdil Siddique More articles by this author , Alexander TsivianAlexander Tsivian More articles by this author , and Matvey TsivianMatvey Tsivian More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002083.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) as an option for urinary diversion after radical cystectomy has fallen out of favor due to a perceived higher risk of stomal stenosis and eventual failure. Herein we review the literature to assess the reported outcomes of CU as a method of urinary diversion. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on the surgical outcomes of cutaneous ureterostomy on PubMed with hand searching of references. Studies were included if they presented the outcomes or techniques for CU by title, abstract, and content of the study including case series, prospective trials, and retrospective analyses. Exclusion criteria included existing literature reviews, case reports, editorials, and reports in languages other than English. The primary outcome was the tube-free rate. The secondary outcome was the rate of surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were reviewed (published between 1970-2019). The most common techniques of CU included the Toyoda and Ariyoshi methods, each being used in 3 different studies. Within the 11 studies that allowed for analysis of the tube-free rate, the median was 73% (range 20-95%) with a median follow-up period of 27.6 months. The rate of any stomal complications ranged from 3.8-47% and the range of gastrointestinal complications ranged from 0-3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: CU is a useful technique for urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. Although it is less popular due to a perception that it has a high failure rate, this review supports that CU is a valid choice for urinary diversion as it has a high success rate depending on the technique used and is associated with fewer perioperative gastrointestinal complications. There are several techniques to perform CU which offer surgeons many options for a diverse patient population. Considering the multiple comorbidities of many patients undergoing radical cystectomy, CU offers an option that is considerably less morbid and should be considered as an option for urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e943-e943 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Randy Casals More articles by this author Tyler Overholt More articles by this author Adil Siddique More articles by this author Alexander Tsivian More articles by this author Matvey Tsivian More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...