==inizio objective==
Urinary diversion has evolved immensely over the last half century. From the introduction of the ileal conduit in 1950 to the development of continent cutaneous diversion in the 1970s, urologists have witnessed a transformation culminating in the development of contemporary orthotopic reconstruction [1]. There are special cases where it is necessary to re-intervene on the urinary derivation, thus introducing the concept of urinary undiversion: packaging of a new urinary diversion in a patient already undergone urinary diversion [2]. The first to describe the un-divertion was Hardy Hendren in 1974, an american pediatric surgeon of the General Hospital and Department of Surgery of Boston. [3, 4]. Hendren performed un-diversion in pediatric patients affected by the following pathologies: Obstructive uropathy, aggravated by bacilluria and deterioration of renal function, Myelodiplasia, cause of neurogenic bladder; and bladder extrophy. The aim of this study is to assess early and late surgical complications as well as Quality of Life in patients treated with urinary undiversion.
==fine objective==
==inizio methodsresults==
We performed a retrospective analysis of our multicenter prospective maintained database. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon (G.M.) from 1994 to 2017. Median follow-up was 166 months (range 8-276 months). Complications were assessed by the Clavien Dindo classification with a time point of 30 days for early and late complications. Quality of Life before and after Surgery were compared with Mann-Whitney U test.
==fine methodsresults==
==inizio results==
At total of 44 patients (29 men and 15 women) with a median age of 62 (IQR 44-72) were identified. Indications for urinary undiversion were: urinary fistula (n=10, 22.7%), cancer recurrents (n=7, 15.9%), urinary incontinence (n=6, 13.6%), hydronefrosis with Chronic Kidney Disease (n=4 9%), recurrent urinary tracts infections (n=5 11.3%), miss adaptation to the stoma (n=10, 22.7%), stomal infection (n=1, 2.2%) and parastomal hernia (n=1, 2.2%). Overall, 27 (61.3%) patients had neobladder and were treated with incontinent urinary undiversion and eteretopic continent urinary undiversion in 23 (52.2%) and 4 (9%) cases, respectively. Eight (18.1%) patients had incontinent urinary diversion and were treated with neobladder and eterotopic continent undiversion in 5 (11.3%) and 3 (6.8%) cases, respectively. Five (11.3%) patients had ureterosigmoidostomy and were treated with eterotopic continent undiversion and incontinent urinary undiversion in 2 (4.5%) and 3 (6.8%) cases, respectively. One (2.2%) patient with ureterocutaneostomy was treated with eterotopic continent urinary undiversion. One (2.2%) patient with eterotopic continent urinary diversion was treated with incontinent urinary undiversion. Finally, in 2 (4.5%) patients the urinary diversion was relocated. In many of these cases it was possible to use the same intestinal segment of the previous urinary diversion in order to perform the urinary undiversion without any intestinal resection. At total of 9 (20.4%) complications occured postoperatively and were classified as follows. Early complications Clavien I (fever ≥ 38,5 °C) and Clavien IIIA (wound dehiscence) were observed in 3 (6.8%) and 2 (4,5%) patients, respectively. Regarding late complications, 4 (9%) patients developed a stricture of the ureteroileal anastomosis, requiring surgical reparation and were therefore classified as Clavien IIIB. We found a significant rise in quality of life in patients undergone urinary undiversion (p≤0.05).
==fine results==
==inizio discussions==
A systematic literature review was performed to identify articles that reported data on undiversion [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. There are no systematic review or multiple cases articles. It must be considered a complex procedure that required experts surgeons with a large background.
==fine discussions==
==inizio conclusion==
Despite the surgical complexity of urinary undiversion, postoperative complications are relatively low compaired to other major urological surgery like radical cistectomy. It’s possible to perform this procedure in selected patients in order to increase quality of life and renal function.
==fine conclusion==
==inizio reference==
1. Anderson CB, McKiernan JM. Surgical Complications of Urinary Diversion. Urol Clin North Am. 2018 Feb;45(1):79-90
2. J.L. Silberstein, S.A. Poon, A.C. Maschino, et al. Urinary diversion practice patterns among certifying American urologists. J Urol, 189 (2013), pp. 1042-1047.
3. Hendren WH. Reconstruction (‘undiversion’) of the diverted urinary tract. Hosp Pract. 1976 Jan;11(1):70-9.
4. Hendren WH – Urinary diversion and undiversion in children. Surg Clin North Am. 1976 Apr;56(2):425-49.
5. De Sy WA, Goerdin A, Lauweryns A. Undiversion after previous cystectomy and Bricker derivation. Eur Urol. 1994;25(1):16-8.
6. Ahmed S, Boucaut HA.Urinary undiversion in 35 patients with neurogenic bladder and an ileal conduit. Aust N Z J Surg. 1987 Oct;57(10):753-61.
7. Boyd SD, Esrig D, Stein JP, Freeman JA, Skinner DG. – Undiversion in men following prior cystoprostatectomy and cutaneous diversion. Is it practical? J Urol. 1994 Aug;152(2 Pt 1):334-7.
8. Herschorn S, Rangaswamy S, Radomski SB. – Urinary undiversion in adults with myelodysplasia: long-term followup. J Urol. 1994 Aug;152(2 Pt 1):329-33.
9. De Sy WA, Goerdin A, Lauweryns A. – Undiversion after previous cystectomy and Bricker derivation. Eur Urol. 1994;25(1):16-8.
10. Kashiwagi A, Satou S, Machino R, Chikaraishi T. – Undiversion in a patient with ileal conduit using cecoileal urinary reservoir, a case report. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi- The Japanese journal of urology, 1992 Jan;83(1):98-101.
11. Hautmann Richard E. – Urinary diversion: Ileal conduit to neobladder. J Urol, 169 (2003), pp. 834-842.
==fine reference==