Double-Barrel Uro-Colostomy Versus Ileal Conduit for Urinary Diversion After Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Review...

Pelvic 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.

To evaluate comparative outcomes of DBUC versus IC to clarify relative risks and potential benefits.

A 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.

Four 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, p = 0.04). Pyelonephritis (42.0% vs. 15.3%; RR 1.37, p = 0.24) and electrolyte derangements (20.6% vs. 15.6%; RR 1.21, p = 0.64) did not differ significantly. Rates of urinary and enteric fistulas were similar. Clavien-Dindo grade III (42.1% vs. 37.1%) and grade IV complications (17.1% vs. 24.2%) were also comparable between groups.

DBUC 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.