“…A mixture of contrast material (Diatrizoate Meglumine, Cystografin 1 , Bracco Diagnostics Inc., Princeton, NJ) and saline was instilled until the patient had the subjective sensation of a full bladder and according with the volume reported in the voiding diary. 3 The patients were then scanned caudal to cranial from the pelvic floor to the level of the third lumbar vertebra using slice model (thickness 5 mm, reconstruction interval 5 mm,140 kV and 250 mA) The 5 mm CT scan section obtained with our scan protocol were transferred to an external workstation (Voxar 1 , Edinburgh, Scotland, now Barco Inc.) where the 3D reconstruction process (Multiplanar reconstructed images or MPR, volume rendering and virtual endoscopic evaluation of the contrast-filled neobladder) was performed. The main focus was on identification of several anatomical parameters: the distance from the center of the neobladder to the symphisis (DPS), to the coccyx line (DC), to the femor head bilaterally (DRF, DLF), the volume calculated by the software using the 3D reconstruction (V), the sphericity as a way to measure the symmetrical shape of the neobladder, calculated as caudocranial diameter þ anteroposterior diameter/latero-lateral diameter (SP), the neovesical-urethral angle measured as the intersection of lines drawn along the dorsal margin of the urethra and the posterior floor of the neobladder (NVUA), recesses (R), internal folds (IF), vesico-ureteral reflux (RE), and the thickness of the neobladder wall (TH) (see Figs.…”