Literature DB >> 29125521

Variation in surgical management of neurogenic bowel among centers participating in National Spina Bifida Patient Registry.

Jonathan C Routh1, David B Joseph2, Tiebin Liu3, Michael S Schechter4, Judy K Thibadeau3, M Chad Wallis5, Elisabeth A Ward3,6, John S Wiener1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Optimal management of neurogenic bowel in patients with spina bifida (SB) remains controversial. Surgical interventions may be utilized to treat constipation and provide fecal continence, but their use may vary among SB treatment centers.
METHODS: We queried the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry (NSBPR) to identify patients who underwent surgical interventions for neurogenic bowel. We abstracted demographic characteristics, SB type, functional level, concurrent bladder surgery, mobility, and NSBPR clinics to determine whether any of these factors were associated with interventions for management of neurogenic bowel. Multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for selection bias was performed.
RESULTS: We identified 5,528 patients with SB enrolled in the 2009-14 NSBPR. Of these, 1,088 (19.7%) underwent procedures for neurogenic bowel, including 957 (17.3%) ACE/cecostomy tube and 155 (2.8%) ileostomy/colostomy patients. Procedures were more likely in patients who were older, white, non-ambulatory, with higher-level lesion, with myelomeningocele lesion, with private health insurance (all p< 0.001), and female (p= 0.006). On multivariable analysis, NSBPR clinic, older age (both p< 0.001), race (p= 0.002), mobility status (p= 0.011), higher lesion level (p< 0.001), private insurance (p= 0.002) and female sex (p= 0.015) were associated with increased odds of surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in rates of procedures to manage neurogenic bowel among NSBPR clinics. In addition to SB-related factors such as mobility status and lesion type/level, non-SB-related factors such as patient age, sex, race and treating center are also associated with the likelihood of undergoing neurogenic bowel intervention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pediatrics; clinical care variation; neurogenic bowel; spina bifida

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29125521      PMCID: PMC5891120          DOI: 10.3233/PRM-170460

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Rehabil Med        ISSN: 1874-5393


  22 in total

1.  Analysis of selection bias in a case-control study of renal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  M Maclure; S Hankinson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 2.  Update on Urological Management of Spina Bifida from Prenatal Diagnosis to Adulthood.

Authors:  Devon C Snow-Lisy; Elizabeth B Yerkes; Earl Y Cheng
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Preliminary report: the antegrade continence enema.

Authors:  P S Malone; P G Ransley; E M Kiely
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-11-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Bladder augmentation versus urinary diversion in patients with spina bifida in the United States.

Authors:  John S Wiener; Jodi Antonelli; Alisa M Shea; Lesley H Curtis; Kevin A Schulman; Tracey L Krupski; Charles D Scales
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Sociodemographic attributes and spina bifida outcomes.

Authors:  Michael S Schechter; Tiebin Liu; Minn Soe; Mark Swanson; Elisabeth Ward; Judy Thibadeau
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Bladder Reconstruction Rates Differ among Centers Participating in National Spina Bifida Patient Registry.

Authors:  Jonathan C Routh; David B Joseph; Tiebin Liu; Michael S Schechter; Judy K Thibadeau; M Chad Wallis; Elisabeth A Ward; John S Wiener
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-08-19       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Racial/ethnic variation in asthma status and management practices among children in managed medicaid.

Authors:  Tracy A Lieu; Paula Lozano; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Felicia W Chi; Nancy G Jensvold; Angela M Capra; Charles P Quesenberry; Joe V Selby; Harold J Farber
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Experience with glycerin for antegrade continence enema in patients with neurogenic bowel.

Authors:  David I Chu; Zarine R Balsara; Jonathan C Routh; Sherry S Ross; John S Wiener
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Malone antegrade continence enema for adults with neurogenic bowel disease.

Authors:  J M Teichman; J M Harris; D M Currie; D B Barber
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Antegrade colonic enemas and intestinal diversion are highly effective in the management of children with intractable constipation.

Authors:  Emily R Christison-Lagay; Leonel Rodriguez; Michael Kurtz; Kristin St Pierre; Daniel P Doody; Allan M Goldstein
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.545

View more
  4 in total

1.  Philosophy of care delivery for spina bifida.

Authors:  Judy Thibadeau; William O Walker; Jonathan Castillo; Brad E Dicianno; Jonathan C Routh; Kathryn A Smith; Lijing Ouyang
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 2.554

2.  Short versus mid-long-term outcome of transanal irrigation in children with spina bifida and anorectal malformations.

Authors:  Emanuele Ausili; A Marte; G Brisighelli; P Midrio; G Mosiello; E La Pergola; L Lombardi; B D Iacobelli; E Caponcelli; M Meroni; E Leva; C Rendeli
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 3.  Malone Antegrade Continence Enemas vs. Cecostomy vs. Transanal Irrigation-What Is New and How Do We Counsel Our Patients?

Authors:  Maryellen S Kelly
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Comparative effectiveness of paediatric kidney stone surgery (the PKIDS trial): study protocol for a patient-centred pragmatic clinical trial.

Authors:  Jonathan S Ellison; Matthew Lorenzo; Hunter Beck; Ruth Beck; David I Chu; Christopher Forrest; Jing Huang; Amy Kratchman; Anna Kurth; Laura Kurth; Michael Kurtz; Thomas Lendvay; Renae Sturm; Gregory Tasian
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.