ReviewCancers2025
Double-Barrel Uro-Colostomy Versus Ileal Conduit for Urinary Diversion After Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic exenteration is a radical operation for advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies, requiring urinary and faecal diversion. The ileal conduit (IC) remains the standard urinary diversion, while the double-barrel uro-colostomy (DBUC) has re-emerged as an alternative that avoids small bowel anastomosis and consolidates diversion into a single stoma.
aimsTo evaluate comparative outcomes of DBUC versus IC to clarify relative risks and potential benefits.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251090885). PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Medline were searched to March 2025 for studies directly comparing DBUC and IC following pelvic exenteration. Eligible studies reported perioperative or urological outcomes.
resultsFour retrospective studies (164 patients; DBUC 88, IC 73) were included. Urinary leak was lower with DBUC (10.2% vs. 15.1%), with pooled analysis showing a higher risk in IC (RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.02-6.20,
conclusionDBUC is a feasible alternative to IC after pelvic exenteration, with reduced urinary leak rates and comparable morbidity. Its single-stoma approach may offer patient-centred advantages. Larger prospective studies incorporating long-term and quality-of-life outcomes are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.