OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes leading to the deterioration of previously successful bladder augmentation and to evaluate the efficacy of re-augmentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 2004, 136 bladder augmentations were performed in two paediatric urological units in Hungary and Turkey. Re-augmentation was necessary in two patients after colocystoplasty and in three after gastrocystoplasty. A secondary augmentation was not required in any patients after ileocystoplasty. The clinical data of these five patients were evaluated. RESULTS: On the basis of the clinical signs and urodynamic studies, re-augmentation was performed 2-7 years after the initial augmentation cystoplasties. Anticholinergic therapy given before re-augmentation did not improve bladder capacity, intravesical pressure and/or bladder compliance. An ileal or sigmoid segment was used for the secondary augmentation. After re-augmentation, all five patients became continent, and showed marked improvement in their urodynamic parameters at a mean (range) follow-up of 6.8 (2-10) years. CONCLUSION: A decreased bladder capacity and/or compliance and increased bladder pressure after successful augmentation cystoplasty might be the result of: (i) impairment of the blood supply to the large bowel or gastric segment used for augmentation; or (ii) bowel mass contractions. Ileocystoplasty seems to be the "first-line" of choice for primary augmentation. Re-augmentation with a bowel segment is a suitable treatment if conservative treatment fails. Regular urodynamic investigations are needed for early detection of malfunction of the augmented bladder, and advising therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes leading to the deterioration of previously successful bladder augmentation and to evaluate the efficacy of re-augmentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 2004, 136 bladder augmentations were performed in two paediatric urological units in Hungary and Turkey. Re-augmentation was necessary in two patients after colocystoplasty and in three after gastrocystoplasty. A secondary augmentation was not required in any patients after ileocystoplasty. The clinical data of these five patients were evaluated. RESULTS: On the basis of the clinical signs and urodynamic studies, re-augmentation was performed 2-7 years after the initial augmentation cystoplasties. Anticholinergic therapy given before re-augmentation did not improve bladder capacity, intravesical pressure and/or bladder compliance. An ileal or sigmoid segment was used for the secondary augmentation. After re-augmentation, all five patients became continent, and showed marked improvement in their urodynamic parameters at a mean (range) follow-up of 6.8 (2-10) years. CONCLUSION: A decreased bladder capacity and/or compliance and increased bladder pressure after successful augmentation cystoplasty might be the result of: (i) impairment of the blood supply to the large bowel or gastric segment used for augmentation; or (ii) bowel mass contractions. Ileocystoplasty seems to be the "first-line" of choice for primary augmentation. Re-augmentation with a bowel segment is a suitable treatment if conservative treatment fails. Regular urodynamic investigations are needed for early detection of malfunction of the augmented bladder, and advising therapy.