Literature DB >> 8022003

Bladder augmentation: ureterocystoplasty versus ileocystoplasty.

E H Landau1, V R Jayanthi, A E Khoury, B M Churchill, R F Gilmour, R E Steckler, G A McLorie.   

Abstract

The primary advantages of augmentation ureterocystoplasty include the absence of mucus, lack of electrolyte absorption from the augmenting segment and the avoidance of gastrointestinal complications. We tested whether the ureteral patch offers sufficient biomaterial to increase adequately the storage efficiency of dysfunctional bladders. Between April 1989 and November 1992, 8 children with unilaterally dilated and tortuous ureters underwent bladder augmentation using detubularized reconfigured megaureter. Clinical and urodynamic outcomes were compared between these patients and a control group of 8 children matched in age and diagnosis who had undergone ileocystoplasty during the same time. Total bladder capacity, pressure specific bladder volume at pressure less than 30 cm. water, dynamic analysis of bladder compliance, continence and upper tract status were compared between the 2 groups before and after augmentation. Preoperatively, all 16 patients were incontinent with high pressure, small capacity bladders, and all had upper tract changes. Postoperatively, the mean total bladder capacity was 417 ml. in the ureterocystoplasty group and 381 ml. in the ileocystoplasty group (p > 0.05), while the mean pressure specific bladder volume was 413 and 380 ml. (p > 0.05), respectively. Pressure specific bladder volume and dynamic bladder compliance were normal in 7 of 8 patients (87.5%) in the ureterocystoplasty group. All patients in the ileocystoplasty group had normal postoperative urodynamics. We conclude that megaureters subtending effete kidneys may be used to improve the storage function of dysfunctional bladders to the same extent as that achieved with ileum without the complications pursuant to ileocystoplasty, and that the improvement is maintained long term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8022003     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32689-7

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


  8 in total

1.  Ureterocystoplasty with renal preservation in young infants.

Authors:  P A Dewan
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 1.827

Review 2.  The role of imaging in pediatric bladder augmentation.

Authors:  Micheál Breen; Andrew Phelps; Carlos Estrada; Jeanne S Chow
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-04-24

3.  Augmentation ureterocystoplasty with ipsilateral renal preservation in the management of patients with compromised renal function secondary to dysfunctional voiding.

Authors:  R F Talic
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Ureterocystoplasty in pediatric patients with unilateral nonfunctioning kidney.

Authors:  Tunç Özdemir; Ahmet Arıkan
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2013-12

5.  [Ureterocystoplasty: functional results and possible problem areas].

Authors:  A Haferkamp; D Melchior; S Schumacher; S C Müller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-03-13       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Our experience with ureterocystoplasty in bilateral functional kidneys.

Authors:  Giray Ergin; Burak Köprü; Turgay Ebiloğlu; Yusuf Kibar; Murat Dayanç
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-08-17

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.