Single Institution Experience Comparing Double-barreled Wet Colostomy to Ileal Conduit for Urinary and Fecal Diversion

Objective To compare outcomes and feasibility of double-barreled wet colostomy and ileal conduit (IC) in patients undergoing total pelvic exenteration (TPE). Methods Between 2004 and 2010, 54 patients underwent TPE for pelvic malignancies. Of those patients, 53 had complete records available for analysis. Two groups were identified based on the technique used for urinary diversion, either by way of an IC or a double-barreled wet colostomy (DBWC). Demographics, comorbidities, complications, length of stay, operative times, morbidity, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups. Results Forty-three patients (81%) underwent a DBWC and ten patients (19%) underwent an IC. The 2 groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and comorbidities. Eighteen patients underwent an R0 resection (39%) and twenty-eight (61%) patients had a non-R0 resection. Seven patients (13%) had a complete response to therapy with no evidence of malignancy. A majority of the patients (68%) undergoing TPE had colorectal histology. Thirty-day morbidity directly related to complications of urinary or fecal diversion was 78% in the DBWC group and 58% in the IC group. There was no perioperative mortality in either group. Conclusion DBWC is a safe and feasible alternative to the traditional IC for urinary diversion. This technique is easy to learn and is associated with similar operative times, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality compared with IC.