PURPOSE: Treating pediatric incontinence can be challenging. Many surgical procedures are available with variable success and complications. Endoscopic injection of bulking agents into an incompetent bladder neck was first described using Teflon and most currently using Deflux. We compared the results of bladder neck injection using Deflux and Teflon to manage urinary incontinence in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in children who underwent primary endoscopic injection of Teflon or Deflux to the bladder neck. Patients with prior bladder neck surgery were excluded. Data were collected on underlying anatomical pathology, preoperative bladder capacity, endoscopic approach, quantity of bulking agent and outcome. Dry was defined as 3 hours or greater awake without wetting. Wet was defined as the need for a pad or diaper. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients underwent primary injection of bulking agents, including 32 via a retrograde approach and 2 via a combined antegrade-retrograde approach. A total of 20 children with a mean age of 2.7 years were injected with Teflon and 11 were injected with Deflux. One of the 20 Teflon injected patients was dry more than 6 months. One of the 14 Deflux injected patients was dry at 3 months in the daytime, another 2 improved at 3 months (antegrade/retrograde in 1) but worsened at 6 months and another was dry after a second injection. All 4 improved children had age appropriate bladder capacity. The volume of injected agent was 1 to 10 cc. No complications were seen. Five children per group underwent subsequent open continence surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck injection of bulking agents is a generally ineffective therapy for incontinence. While neither the number of injections nor the bulking agent used affected the results, adequate bladder capacity and antegrade injection with Deflux heralded short-term improvement. Patients with exstrophy consistently did poorly.
PURPOSE: Treating pediatric incontinence can be challenging. Many surgical procedures are available with variable success and complications. Endoscopic injection of bulking agents into an incompetent bladder neck was first described using Teflon and most currently using Deflux. We compared the results of bladder neck injection using Deflux and Teflon to manage urinary incontinence in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in children who underwent primary endoscopic injection of Teflon or Deflux to the bladder neck. Patients with prior bladder neck surgery were excluded. Data were collected on underlying anatomical pathology, preoperative bladder capacity, endoscopic approach, quantity of bulking agent and outcome. Dry was defined as 3 hours or greater awake without wetting. Wet was defined as the need for a pad or diaper. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients underwent primary injection of bulking agents, including 32 via a retrograde approach and 2 via a combined antegrade-retrograde approach. A total of 20 children with a mean age of 2.7 years were injected with Teflon and 11 were injected with Deflux. One of the 20 Teflon injected patients was dry more than 6 months. One of the 14 Deflux injected patients was dry at 3 months in the daytime, another 2 improved at 3 months (antegrade/retrograde in 1) but worsened at 6 months and another was dry after a second injection. All 4 improved children had age appropriate bladder capacity. The volume of injected agent was 1 to 10 cc. No complications were seen. Five children per group underwent subsequent open continence surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck injection of bulking agents is a generally ineffective therapy for incontinence. While neither the number of injections nor the bulking agent used affected the results, adequate bladder capacity and antegrade injection with Deflux heralded short-term improvement. Patients with exstrophy consistently did poorly.