About

Benjamin J. McCormick, MD, is a urologic surgeon at the University of Utah specializing in gender-affirming surgery, complex GU reconstruction, and trauma. He attended Vanderbilt University School of Medicine prior to completing his training in Urology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He then completed further fellowship training in reconstructive urology and gender-affirming surgery at the University of Utah. His clinical interests include complications of urologic surgery, LGBTQ health and surgery, male incontinence, pelvic fracture and urethral injury, robotic kidney surgery, robotic reconstruction, robotic ureteral re-implant, trauma and reconstructive urology, ureteral and urethral stricture. His research interests include GU trauma, gender affirmation surgery, and urethral strictures. Dr. McCormick is board-certified by the American Board of Urology and is highly regarded by patients for his professionalism, kindness, and expertise in complex urological procedures.

Research topics

• Surgery
• Medicine
• Pathology
• Intensive care medicine
• Internal medicine
• Dermatology

Selected publications

• Outcomes After Colon Conduit Urinary Diversion: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study From the Reconstruction and Diversion: Improving Outcomes Group

  The Journal of Urology · 2026-01-13 · 1 citations

  article

  PURPOSE: To assess outcomes after colon conduit urinary diversion (CCUD) with and without concurrent colon anastomosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent CCUD were retrospectively identified at 4 institutions. Primary outcomes included 0- to 90-day high-grade complications, 30-day readmission, and late interventions. Secondary outcomes included high-grade complications and their association with concurrent colonic anastomosis, prior radiation, and hypoalbuminemia. The cohort was substratified into (1) CCUD with colonic anastomosis, (2) CCUD with colostomy, and (3) colostomy switch. Patient characteristics, perioperative variables, and outcomes were compared between groups using descriptive, univariable, and multivariable statistics. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients, median age 61 years, underwent CCUD between 1990 and 2022. Prior radiation therapy (63.7%), genitourinary surgery (54%), and abdominal surgery (72%) were common within the cohort. Outcomes included 30-day high-grade complications (28.5%), 30- to 90-day high-grade complications (14.5%), and 90-day mortality (4.5%). Ninety-day reintervention (surgical or procedural) was 30.2%. The most common late complication was need for ureteral stent or nephrostomy tube (16.8%). Preoperative albumin ≥ 3.2 was associated with reduced 30- to 90-day high-grade complications (HR 0.18). Development of high-grade complication during postoperative day 0 to 30 was associated with an increased likelihood of developing a secondary high-grade complication between postoperative day 30 and 90 (HR 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a colonic anastomosis at the time of colon conduit urinary was not associated with worse 30-day outcomes. Hypoalbuminemia was associated with an increased likelihood of 30- to 90-day high-grade complications. Use of colon remains an important option for urinary diversion surgery when ileum is not clinically feasible.

  PublisherDOI

• Spectrum, prevalence, and clinical correlates of <i>PPM1D</i> mutations in patients with clonal hematopoiesis and clonal cytopenias

  Blood Advances · 2026-01-07 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access

  ABSTRACT: TP53 and PPM1D are key regulators of DNA damage response and repair, and somatic mutations in these genes often co-occur in hematopoietic cells, expanding under genotoxic stress. Unlike TP53 mutations, where mechanisms of progression are defined, pathways underlying clonal fitness and transformation in PPM1D mutant cells remain unclear. In collaboration with 5 academic institutions, we analyzed the clinical and molecular landscape of 337 patients with clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) across 4 genotypes: PPM1Dmt/TP53wt (n = 170 [50%]), PPM1Dmt/TP53mt (n = 25 [7%]), TP53mt/PPM1Dwt (n = 17 [5%]), and TP53wt/PPM1Dwt (n = 125 [38%]). All PPM1D variants were truncating, located in exon 6 of the gene, with a median variant allele frequency (VAF) of 6% (range, 0.3%-64%). The PPM1Dmt/TP53mt genotype was most frequently encountered in therapy-related CH/CCUS (t-CH/t-CCUS; 80%, 66.5%, 76.5%, and 19%; P ≤ .001) and had a shorter time interval to detection from last genotoxic exposure (6.2, 5.9, 11.25, and 24.5 months; P ≤ .001) compared with PPM1Dmt/TP53wt, TP53mt/PPM1Dwt, and TP53wt/PPM1Dwt genotypes, respectively. Acknowledging the short follow-up duration, rates of malignant transformation were lower in the PPM1Dmt/TP53wt (2%) and PPM1Dmt/TP53mt (4%) groups compared with PPM1Dwt/TP53wt (12%) and PPM1Dwt/TP53mt (17%) groups (P ≤ .001), respectively. In summary, PPM1D mutations are frequently observed in t-CH/t-CCUS, with low median VAFs, and are associated with low rates of progression, even when comutated with TP53.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Case Report: Successful treatment of steroid-refractory graft-vs.-host disease following bilateral lung transplantation

  Frontiers in Transplantation · 2025-10-13 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) is a rare but potentially fatal complication following solid organ transplantation (SOT), with limited reported cases and high mortality rates after lung transplantation. We present a case of steroid-refractory GVHD (SR-GVHD) following bilateral lung transplantation and review the literature on GVHD in SOT. A patient developed SR-GVHD affecting the skin, gut, liver, and bone marrow following bilateral lung transplantation. Initial treatment with high-dose corticosteroids was ineffective. Subsequent therapy with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) and ruxolitinib led to complete remission over two months. Short tandem repeat (STR) analysis aided in diagnosis and monitoring. This case highlights the importance of early diagnosis and aggressive treatment of GVHD following SOT. We propose a treatment algorithm including rapid escalation to multi-agent immunosuppression for SR-GVHD. Interdisciplinary collaboration between solid organ and stem cell transplant specialists is crucial. Further research is needed to identify optimal strategies for prevention and treatment of GVHD in SOT recipients.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• UCF-05 PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF UROLOGISTS TOWARDS GLOBAL UROLOGIC SURGERY INITIATIVES

  The Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Spectrum, Prevalence, and Clinical Correlates of PPM1D Mutations in Patients with Clonal Haematopoiesis and Clonal Cytopenias

  EMJ Hematology · 2025-07-24

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Microangiopathy

  Journal of Blood Medicine · 2025-07-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract: Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia with associated multiorgan failure is a medical emergency. The differential diagnosis for microangiopathic hemolytic anemia is broad and requires a systematic, focused approach at ruling out serious causes. However, with the rise of new vaccines and sporadic reports of vaccine-induced microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, it is essential for providers to include vaccines as a potential cause on their differential diagnosis. Here, we report the first case of respiratory syncytial virus vaccine-induced microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, anuric renal failure, and metabolic encephalopathy in the world. Keywords: microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, respiratory syncytial virus, renal failure, metabolic encephalopathy

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Real‐World Outcomes of Relapsed/Refractory Core‐Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A <scp>COMMAND</scp> Registry Study

  American Journal of Hematology · 2025-03-10

  letterOpen access

  Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML) is characterized by the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16) or t(8;21) and is classified as favorable risk by the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines [1]. We have previously reported on outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed CBF-AML treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC) regimens [2] and despite the favorable risk status, approximately 50% of patients experienced relapse. Prior analyses have shown limited survival after relapse [3-5]. Khan et al. reported on 92 patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CBF-AML treated from 1990 to 2014 with a median overall survival (mOS) of 12 months; type of therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) did not impact survival [3]. Hospital et al. evaluated 145 patients with CBF-AML from 1994 to 2011 who underwent IC on a variety of French AML Intergroup studies and reported a second complete remission (CR2) rate of 88% with 5-year disease-free survival of 50% for the entire cohort [5]. Additionally, 53% of the patients included in this study proceeded to undergo alloSCT in CR2, with the study noting a survival benefit for patients with inv(16) but not for t(8;21). Finally, Kurosawa et al. analyzed 139 patients treated from 1999 to 2006 with R/R CBF-AML and reported a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 48% along with a survival benefit seen with alloSCT in those with t(8;21) [4]. While these prior studies offer valuable insight into the outcomes of R/R CBF-AML, the therapeutic armamentarium for AML has greatly expanded since 2017 with the re-approval of the CD33-directed antibody drug conjugate gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) and guideline recommendations for its frontline use in intensive IC-eligible patients with CBF-AML, and the incorporation of targeted therapeutics and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax into management [6]. Furthermore, access to alloSCT has expanded given the increasing utilization of haplo-identical as well as mismatched donors when appropriate. Given these advances, we sought to characterize the treatment patterns and outcomes of R/R CBF-AML patients in a timeframe inclusive of these advances. Here we report on 68 patients with CBF-AML who experienced relapse or were refractory to frontline IC from the Consortium on Myeloid Malignancies and Neoplastic Diseases (COMMAND) registry and received treatment for their R/R disease. Patients with AML harboring inv(16)/t(16;16) or t(8;21) who were treated with IC from January 2010 through April 2023, across the seven participating institutions, were included. The study was approved by the institutional review boards at institution participating in the COMMAND registry. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan–Meier survival estimates and log-rank tests of significance, with additional modifications as noted below. The median age of patients at diagnosis with CBF-AML was 48.5 years (range 20–72 years), with 59% male patients and 24% of patients identifying as under-represented minorities (African American, Hispanic, or other). Fifty percent of patients had AML harboring t(8;21) while 50% had AML with inv(16), with 18% harboring other mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities that would have otherwise categorized them as adverse risk by ELN22 guidelines when excluding CBF status. Six percent of patients were categorized as having therapy-related AML. All patients were treated with frontline IC, with 30% of patients also receiving GO with their frontline induction therapy. Six percent of patients (4/68) were refractory to induction therapy, and 74% received post-relapse treatment from 2017 onwards. Additional characteristics are summarized in Table S1. The median time to relapse was 11.0 months (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 8.5–14.5 months). At relapse, 29% of cases harbored additional cytogenetic abnormalities; 7% (5/68) harbored complex cytogenetics. Fifty percent of patients (n = 34) had next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing done at time of relapse, with KIT mutations being the most common at 7/34 (21%). Among the seven patients with AML harboring KIT mutations, three did not have a KIT mutation detected at original CBF-AML diagnosis. Other most common mutations detected at relapse included: NRAS (5/34), FLT3 (4/34), IDH2 (3/34), and KRAS (2/34). Altogether among patients with NGS testing at relapse 12/34 (35%) would have been categorized as adverse risk by ELN22 criteria after excluding CBF-AML status. Mutations by treatment group at time of relapse (IC vs. hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax vs. HMA alone) are further detailed in Table S3. All included patients received additional chemotherapy after relapse. Seventy-five percent (51/68) received intensive chemotherapy with 6/68 (9%) receiving venetoclax in addition to intensive chemotherapy. Sixteen percent (11/68) of patients received an HMA with venetoclax, and 7% (5/68) received HMA monotherapy. Additionally, among all patients 9% (6/68) received an additional targeted therapeutic (e.g., IDH2 inhibitor) and 3% (2/68) received therapy with the addition of GO. The median time from initiation of therapy to response assessment was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.9–1.7 months). Among 67 evaluable patients, 75% (50/67) achieved a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), and 18% (12/67) had progressive disease. The overall CR/CRi rate for all patients was 75%, 82% (42/51) for those receiving intensive chemotherapy, 55% (6/11) for HMA + venetoclax, and 40% (2/5) for HMA monotherapy. Of patients achieving a response to relapse therapy, 71% (39/55) went on to receive an alloSCT. Among patients initially achieving response to therapy, 29% (16/55) experienced subsequent disease relapse at a median time of 8.3 months (IQR: 4.7–12.4 months) after first relapse. The median time of follow-up for all included patients after relapse or refractory disease was 13.9 months (IQR: 6.0–39.3 months). The 12-month event-free survival (EFS) from time of first relapse was 53% (95% CI: 42%–67%), and 12-month OS was 65% (95% CI: 54%–78%) (Figure 1A,B). To evaluate survival outcomes by intensity of therapy, we censored patients at time of receipt of alloSCT. For those receiving IC, 12-month EFS was 26% (95% CI: 14%–49%) compared to 12% (95% CI: 20%–68%) for those receiving lower-intensity therapy (p = 0.66); 12-month OS for those receiving intensive chemotherapy was 28% (95% CI: 16%–51%), compared to 31% (95% CI: 12%–73%) for those receiving lower-intensity therapy (p = 0.76) (Figure 2A,B). We also evaluated survival outcomes by alloSCT consolidation with landmark analysis at 3 months after first relapse. For patients who received a consolidative alloSCT, the 12-month EFS was 73% (95% CI: 60%–89%), while those who did not have alloSCT consolidation experienced a 12-month EFS of 24% (95% CI: 9%–64%) (p < 0.01). Similarly, those who underwent alloSCT experienced a 12-month OS of 81% (95% CI: 70%–95%) compared to 52% (95% CI: 30%–89%) for those who did not undergo alloSCT (p < 0.01) (Figure 3A,B). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for EFS, consolidation with alloSCT after first relapse was associated with significantly improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12–0.48, p < 0.01). In the multivariable model for OS, consolidation with alloSCT after first relapse was also associated with significantly improved OS (HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05–0.75, p = 0.02) as well as the presence of mutations categorized as adverse risk by ELN22 guidelines when excluding CBF status (HR 4.2, 95% CI: 1.4–12.4, p < 0.01) (Table S2). In this modern, multi-center study of CBF-AML patients who relapse after frontline IC, our data suggest that there is no survival benefit to intensive therapies over less intensive ones when censoring for alloSCT. However, CR/CRi rates were higher for those with intensive chemotherapy, suggesting that there may be benefit in intensive chemotherapy in bridging patients to alloSCT for definitive treatment. While CBF cytogenetics (inv[16] vs. t[8;21]) were associated with EFS and OS on univariate analysis, this did not persist in the multivariate model, where only receipt of alloSCT was associated with significantly improved EFS and OS. Compared to prior retrospective studies [3-5] as discussed above, we did not find a significant difference in the benefit of alloSCT between patients with R/R CBF-AML harboring inv(16) versus t(8;21). Our study population had a higher utilization of alloSCT as a consolidative strategy at 71%. This may be reflective of a more modern treatment era which includes advances in the availability of alloSCT donors for more patients, along with the inclusion of a broader set of academic institutions nationally. We also did not find differences in survival outcomes between intensive versus lower-intensity treatments when censored at time of alloSCT in contrast to prior studies, which is also likely reflective of improvements in lower intensity treatment options, including the addition of venetoclax to HMA therapy, as well as targeted inhibitors for other co-occurring mutations such as IDH2. Our study has limitations, most notably the limited sample size and thus ability to pursue further subgroup analyses. While we note significant benefit by consolidation with alloSCT, we did not have additional details on donor HLA matching status and conditioning regimens available. Baseline patient factors at time of relapse such as performance status and additional hematologic variables including blood cell counts and blast percentages were also unavailable. Patients with R/R CBF-AML after frontline induction therapy should be strongly considered for alloSCT consolidation upon achieving a response. The emergence of strategies which allow increased tolerance of haplo-identical or HLA-mismatched donors promises to expand the pool of suitable donors for patients in need of alloSCT. We demonstrate a clear benefit in our patient cohort of alloSCT for CBF-AML patients after first relapse, irrespective of other factors including CBF cytogenetics in the modern era, and thus this treatment goal should be a main therapeutic goal for management of relapsed CBF-AML in patients eligible for alloSCT. A.E.R. and A.A.P. designed the study, collected data, analyzed all data, and wrote the manuscript. B.J.M., J.C., O.O., Y.A., N.N., C.E.F., R.K.A., R.M.S., D.B., M.S., V.K., G.S.G.M., and T.B. collected data, reviewed the manuscript, and provided edits. All participating centers obtained approval from their respective Institutional Review Boards (IRB). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Y.A.: research funding from Biomea, Curis, Biosight, ALX Oncology Novartis; honoraria from Servier, Pfizer, BMS, Kite, Astellas, Rigel. C.E.F.: honoraria from Binaytara Foundation. R.M.S.: honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Kura Oncology, Gilead Sciences, Rigel, Servier. V.K.: Kite: honoraria; Novartis: honoraria; Incyte: research funding; Pfizer: honoraria. T.B.: served in advisory board for Takeda, Morphosys and Pfizer. A.A.P.: honoraria from AbbVie and Bristol Myers Squibb; research funding from Krono Bio and Pfizer from AbbVie and Bristol Myers Squibb; research funding from Krono Bio and Pfizer. Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. Table S1. Table S2. Table S3. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 69-Year-Old Man With Acute Kidney Injury

  Mayo Clinic Proceedings · 2025-05-03 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast Phase: A multicenter analysis by the h jean khoury cure CML consortium

  Blood · 2025-11-03 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for AML and ALL, the outcomes of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP) remain poor. Consensus guidelines on treatment of CML-BP are scarce. A recent study from the European leukemia network blast phase registry on 240 pts reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we undertook this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of pts with CML-BP in the US. Methods: This is a multi-institution, retrospective study. IRB approval was obtained at each institution and data sharing agreements were executed. All pts diagnosed with CML-BP based on modified MD Anderson Criteria (≥30% blasts in the blood or bone marrow or extramedullary (EM) disease) from 2010 to 2025 were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis of CML BP to death from any cause. Event free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of best response to event (death or relapse). Results: Of the 283 pts with CML-BP, 96 (33.9%) were female and 187 (66.1%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 183 (64.6%) had CML-CP, 21 (7.4%) pts had CML-AP and 79 (27.9%) pts had de-novo CML-BP. For the 204 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 22.5 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 50 years (range 16-86 years). EM disease was present in 78 (27.6%) pts (38 myeloid sarcoma, 30 central nervous system and 10 skin). Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 168 (59.4%), lymphoid in 103 (36.4%) and mixed in 9 (3.2%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 229 (80.9%), p190 in 8 (2.8%) and p230 in 2 (0.7%) pts. ABL kinase domain mutation was seen in 42.1% (80/190) pts, with T315I being the most common (n=32), followed by E255K (n=16). Next generation sequencing was performed in 117 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=27), RUNX1 (n=14), BCOR (n=4), DNMT3A (n=4) and BCORL1 (n=3). Of the 283 pts, 269 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. 63 (23.4%) pts were treated with TKI monotherapy, 184 (68.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy (chemo) and TKI and 22 (8.2%) pts were treated with chemo alone. Response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 75.3% (n=213). Best response was return to CML-CP in 49 pts, CHR with PCyR in 18 pts, CCyR in 31 pts, MMR in 31 pts, MR4 in 18 pts, MR4.5 in 19 pts and MR5 in 47 pts. Rate of response with 2G and ponatinib was significantly better than imatinib (85.3% and 77.3% vs 63.6%; p=0.04). 149 (55.4%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 213 pts that responded, 59 (27.7%) relapsed. At a median follow-up of 47 months, the median OS for all pts was 19.7 months (95% CI: 16.3-40.2 months), with 5-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI: 32-45%). Pts with myeloid phenotype had a significantly lower OS compared to lymphoid and mixed phenotype (Median OS 14.9 vs 45.9 and 31.1 months respectively; p=0.02). OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemo was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (52.9 vs 16.1 or 7.5 months; p&amp;lt;0.0001). Dasatinib (n=99; 34.9%) and ponatinib (n=97; 34.3%) were the most used TKIs followed by imatinib (n=23; 8.1%), nilotinib (n=21; 7.4%), bosutinib (n=8; 2.8%) and asciminib (n=3; 1.1%). Pts treated with ponatinib had a numerically longer OS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib, however this was not statistically significant (40.1 vs 30.6 and 20.3 months; p=0.52). EFS for pts treated with ponatinib was significantly longer compared to 2G-TKI or imatinib (25.9 vs 17.6 and 15.9 months; p=0.03). In a landmark analysis, pts that underwent alloSCT within 6 months of diagnosis had a significantly longer OS compared to those who did not (69.3 vs 16.0 months; p=0.006). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have poor prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemo. In our analysis, treatment with 2G-TKI or ponatinib led to better responses. CML-BP with myeloid phenotype had worse OS. Treatment with ponatinib was associated with a numerically longer OS and significantly longer EFS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib. In addition, treatment with chemo in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Outcomes of unilateral compared to bilateral ileal ureter substitution: A retrospective single center study

  International journal of reconstructive urology. · 2025-01-01

  articleOpen access

  ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and durability of bilateral ileal ureter substitution and compare the postoperative outcomes following unilateral vs. bilateral substitutions. Materials and Methods: This was a single institution retrospective review of all patients who underwent ileal ureter substitution between 2011 and 2023. Demographic data, past medical history, disease-specific variables, intra- and perioperative data, and follow-up were extracted from patient charts. Fischer exact tests and paired t tests were used to compare outcomes between the unilateral and bilateral ileal ureter groups. Results: A total of 25 patients were included: 11 bilateral and 14 unilateral ileal ureter substitution. Bilateral cases were primarily radiation-related strictures (64%), while unilateral cases were iatrogenic (78%). Preoperatively, unilateral cases had significantly higher mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (69 mL/min vs. 35 mL/min, P = 0.003) and lower serum creatinine (1.34 mg/dL vs. 1.90 mg/dL, P = 0.03). No difference was found in blood loss or surgery duration ( P = 0.47; P = 0.75), but bilateral patients had longer hospital stays ( P = 0.04). Clavien–Dindo complications ≥ IIIa occurred in two unilateral and three bilateral cases within 90 days. Hydronephrosis improved in 93% of unilateral and 90% of bilateral patients. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) status remained stable or improved in the 71% of unilateral and 81% of bilateral patients. Conclusions: We demonstrated similar outcomes for patients with unilateral and bilateral reconstructions. Nearly, all the patients had improved or no hydronephrosis at follow-up, and renal function parameters were improved or preserved in most patients. Both unilateral and bilateral ileal ureteral substitution can be beneficial in a select group of patients who wish to live tube-free.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Jeremy B. Myers

  24 shared

• Ian Schwartz

  22 shared

• Judith C. Hagedorn

  University of Washington

  21 shared

• Bradley D. Figler

  21 shared

• Răzvan M. Chirilă

  Jacksonville College

  21 shared

• Sorena Keihani

  University of Utah

  20 shared

• Benjamin N. Breyer

  University of California, San Francisco

  19 shared

• Rachel A. Moses

  Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center

  19 shared

Education

• M.D.

  Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

• M.D., Urology

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Other, Reconstructive Urology and Gender-Affirming Surgery

  University of Utah