Literature DB >> 16952684

Is bowel preparation required before cystoplasty in children?

Mohan S Gundeti1, Prasad P Godbole, Duncan T Wilcox.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether bowel preparation is required before augmentation cystoplasty in children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 46 consecutive children underwent cystoplasty using detubularized ileum between 1998 and 2004. Group 1 (24 patients) underwent standard mechanical bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate, a bowel enema (sodium phosphate) if required and clear fluids for 24 hours preoperatively. Group 2 (22 patients) received no bowel preparation and was on a normal diet preoperatively. One dose of parenteral triple antibiotics was administered at induction of anesthesia in both groups. The surgical technique was similar in both groups. Postoperatively, group 1 had a nasogastric tube in situ, while group 2 had no nasogastric tube. The main outcome measures were hospital stay (days), time to commencing fluids postoperatively (hours), incidence of urinary tract infection during hospitalization and incidence of wound infection.
RESULTS: Median postoperative stay was 5 days (range 4 to 7) in group 1 and 4 days (3 to 6) in group 2. Median time to intake of oral fluids was 48 hours (range 24 to 72) in group 1 and 24 hours (12 to 48) in group 2. Three patients in group 1 and 2 in group 2 had a symptomatic urinary tract infection during the postoperative course. One patient in each group had a superficial wound infection.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in hospital stay or postoperative complications between the 2 groups. This series suggests that bowel preparation is unnecessary for children undergoing cystoplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16952684     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  5 in total

Review 1.  Does using comprehensive preoperative bowel preparation offer any advantage for urinary diversion using ileum? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Luo Yang; Heng-shan Chen; Blayne Welk; John D Denstedt; Kunjie Wang; Hong Li; Qiang Wei; Xiang Li
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-11-17       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  The University of Chicago technique of complete intracorporeal pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy.

Authors:  Mohan S Gundeti; Sujeet S Acharya; Gregory P Zagaja
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-03-12

3.  Utilization of and barriers to enhanced recovery pathway implementation in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Yvonne Y Chan; Ilina Rosoklija; Patrick Meade; Nicholas E Burjek; Mehul V Raval; Elizabeth B Yerkes; Kyle O Rove; David I Chu
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 1.921

4.  Design and development of the Pediatric Urology Recovery After Surgery Endeavor (PURSUE) multicentre pilot and exploratory study.

Authors:  Kyle O Rove; Andrew C Strine; Duncan T Wilcox; Gino J Vricella; Timothy P Welch; Brian VanderBrink; David I Chu; Rajeev Chaudhry; Rebecca S Zee; Megan A Brockel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in children: Step-by-step and modifications to UChicago technique.

Authors:  Brittany Adamic; Lakshmi Kirkire; Ciro Andolfi; Craig Labbate; Joshua Aizen; Mohan Gundeti
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2020-03-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.