OBJECTIVE: To assess the current indications for cutaneous ureterostomy in children. METHOD: A total of 32 children underwent cutaneous ureterostomy at Texas Children's Hospital from 1975 to 1990. Medical records were reviewed to determine the urologic diagnosis, the indication for urinary diversion, the type of ureterostomy performed, and the outcome for each patient. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent loop cutaneous ureterostomy (LCU) or pyelostomy and 12 patients underwent end cutaneous ureterostomy (ECU). The main indication for LCU was obstructive uropathy unresponsive to lower urinary tract drainage, and the most common cause was posterior urethral valves. Other indications for LCU included obstruction requiring delayed surgical correction, high-grade reflux into a solitary kidney, and obstruction with infection. The children who required ECU were an older, more diverse group than those who underwent LCU. The main indication for ECU was poor bladder function secondary to a variety of congenital anomalies, including prune-belly syndrome, posterior urethral valves, bladder exstrophy, and urogenital sinus defect. CONCLUSION: LCU is easy to perform and is an excellent method for achieving temporary upper urinary tract drainage. ECU is suited for long-term or permanent urinary diversion in children with at least one dilated ureter, and can provide a socially acceptable stoma when delayed reconstruction is necessary. Many children who were "permanently" diverted by ECU may be undiverted using newer reconstructive techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the current indications for cutaneous ureterostomy in children. METHOD: A total of 32 children underwent cutaneous ureterostomy at Texas Children's Hospital from 1975 to 1990. Medical records were reviewed to determine the urologic diagnosis, the indication for urinary diversion, the type of ureterostomy performed, and the outcome for each patient. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent loop cutaneous ureterostomy (LCU) or pyelostomy and 12 patients underwent end cutaneous ureterostomy (ECU). The main indication for LCU was obstructive uropathy unresponsive to lower urinary tract drainage, and the most common cause was posterior urethral valves. Other indications for LCU included obstruction requiring delayed surgical correction, high-grade reflux into a solitary kidney, and obstruction with infection. The children who required ECU were an older, more diverse group than those who underwent LCU. The main indication for ECU was poor bladder function secondary to a variety of congenital anomalies, including prune-belly syndrome, posterior urethral valves, bladder exstrophy, and urogenital sinus defect. CONCLUSION:LCU is easy to perform and is an excellent method for achieving temporary upper urinary tract drainage. ECU is suited for long-term or permanent urinary diversion in children with at least one dilated ureter, and can provide a socially acceptable stoma when delayed reconstruction is necessary. Many children who were "permanently" diverted by ECU may be undiverted using newer reconstructive techniques.