Urology
Volume 70, Issue 4 , Pages 654-658, October 2007

Bowel Preparation Versus No Preparation Before Ileal Urinary Diversion

  • Ali Tabibi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Ali Tabibi, M.D., Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, No. 44, 9th Boustan, Pasdaran, Tehran 16666 179951, Iran.
  • ,
  • Nasser Simforoosh

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • ,
  • Abbas Basiri

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • ,
  • Mohammadreza Ezzatnejad

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • ,
  • Hamidreza Abdi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • ,
  • Farhat Farrokhi

      Affiliations

    • Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Received 15 November 2006; accepted 26 June 2007.

Objectives

To compare the outcome and complications of urinary diversion using ileum, with and without bowel preparation. Recent studies have questioned the necessity of bowel preparation, especially for urinary diversion when ileum is used.

Methods

In this clinical trial, 30 candidates for urinary diversion underwent a 3-day standard bowel preparation (group 1), and 32 were admitted 24 hours before surgery and received only a soft diet, with no oral intake, 8 hours before surgery (group 2). They were followed up for at least 6 months and were evaluated for outcome and surgical complications.

Results

All surgical operations were performed successfully using ileum. Postoperative complications were documented in 2 and 4 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.31, P = 0.41). Anastomotic leak, enterocutaneous fistula, and wound infection and dehiscence occurred in 1 patient in group 1, leading to reoperation. One case of ileus was also seen in group 1. In group 2, wound infection and dehiscence occurred 2 in patients and ileus in 2 others.

Conclusions

This study failed to demonstrate any advantage of bowel preparation for urinary diversion when we use the ileal segment. Furthermore, a meticulous use of ileum can be done without the need for a colon segment in bladder substitution procedures.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was done with the support of the nonprofit Urology and Nephrology Research Center, affiliated to the Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

PII: S0090-4295(07)01786-4

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.06.1107

Urology
Volume 70, Issue 4 , Pages 654-658, October 2007