Literature DB >> 12010242

A long-term follow-up of autoaugmentation in myelodysplastic children.

A Marte1, D Di Meglio, A M Cotrufo, G Di Iorio, M De Pasquale, A Vessella.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term results of patients who underwent bladder autoaugmentation (BA) in whom BA was used to treat a neuropathic bladder secondary to myelomeningocele, and who presented with a high-pressure/poorly compliant bladder. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven patients (eight girls and three boys, mean age 12.8 years, mean follow-up 6.6 years) were selected who had undergone BA between June 1991 and June 1994. At surgery, the patients had a poorly compliant bladder with a mean leak point volume (LPV) of 94 mL and a mean leak point pressure (LPP) of 58 cmH2O. None of the patients had vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR) at BA; five with grade III or IV VUR had undergone endoscopic correction in a day-surgery procedure using a suburethral collagen injection 1-3 weeks before BA. The patients were evaluated using clinical, urodynamic, radiological and endoscopic assessments. The LPV, LPP and safe bladder capacity (SBC, the cystometric volume at an intravesical pressure of 40 cmH2O) were recorded.
RESULTS: At 1 year after surgery the mean LPV was 297 mL; none of the patients had VUR. The most recent mean LPV was 198 mL and the SBC 167 mL. The mean LPP remained stable at 60 cmH2O. At the last follow-up four patients had recurrent uni- or bilateral grade III-V VUR. At endoscopy the 'augmented' bladder portion had a smooth surface, compared with the grossly trabeculated lower half. From this finding all patients on clean intermittent catheterization were treated with oral oxybutynin. Some patients reported slightly less abdominal pain at maximum bladder volume; four needed pads to treat intermittent incontinence. On voiding cysto-urethrography, one patient had an hourglass-shaped bladder. Five patients recently underwent ileocystoplasty because of recurrent urinary tract infection, high-grade VUR and incontinence.
CONCLUSION: These results do not justify the routine use of BA in hypertonic/poorly compliant bladders secondary to myelomeningocele. The mean follow-up of 6.6 years showed that this procedure failed in seven of 11 patients. Further studies might be able to identify subgroups in which this approach may be more appropriate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12010242     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02781.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  9 in total

1.  Bladder augmentation using acellular collagen biomatrix: a pilot experience in exstrophic patients.

Authors:  Paolo Caione; Renata Boldrini; Annamaria Salerno; Simona Gerocarni Nappo
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 1.827

2.  Urinary bladder auto augmentation using INTEGRA and SURGISIS: an experimental model.

Authors:  Gera Parshotam Kumar; Andrew Barker; Saeed Ahmed; Jevon Gerath; Jillian Orford
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  In vivo bladder regeneration using small intestinal submucosa: experimental study.

Authors:  P Caione; N Capozza; D Zavaglia; G Palombaro; R Boldrini
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 1.827

Review 4.  Urinary considerations for adult patients with spinal dysraphism.

Authors:  Paul W Veenboer; Laetitia M O de Kort; Rafal J Chrzan; Tom P V M de Jong
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Alternatives to conventional enterocystoplasty in children: a critical review of urodynamic outcomes.

Authors:  Ricardo González; Barbara M Ludwikowski
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 3.418

6.  Hourglass bladder after ileocystoplasty (case report).

Authors:  Hamdan H Alhazmi
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.526

7.  Hourglass urinary bladder in a spinal cord injury patient - unusual late complication of suprapubic cystostomy: a case report.

Authors:  Subramanian Vaidyanathan; Peter L Hughes; Bakul M Soni; Gurpreet Singh; Paul Mansour
Journal:  Cases J       Date:  2009-05-18

8.  Bladder augmentation: Review of the literature and recent advances.

Authors:  Serhat Gurocak; Jody Nuininga; Iyimser Ure; Robert P E De Gier; Mustafa Ozgur Tan; Wouter Feitz
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-10

Review 9.  The evolution of bladder augmentation: from creating a reservoir to reconstituting an organ.

Authors:  Roman Jednak
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.418

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.