Continent catheterizable conduits: which stoma, which conduit and which reservoir?

Abstract

Objective To assess the outcome of the various methods used in creating continent catheterizable conduits. Patients and methods The case notes were reviewed from 89 patients who underwent the formation of 112 continent catheterizable conduits. Results Sixty‐five conduits were Mitrofanoff and 47 were antegrade colonic enema (ACE); 21 patients had both. At a mean follow‐up of 34 months, 95 (85%) conduits were still in use. There was no difference in complications between the Mitrofanoff and ACE conduits; 109 (97%) conduits were continent and stomal stenosis occurred 35 (31%). There was no significant difference relating to the conduit used, the reservoir, the stoma type or the stoma site. Only 39% of patients required no revisional surgery. Conclusion Although urinary and fecal continence can be achieved in most patients there is a high burden of complications and revisional surgery. All patients should be counselled accordingly.