Long-term followup of patients after redo bladder neck reconstruction for bladder exstrophy complex.
Links Long-term followup of patients after redo bladder neck reconstruction for bladder exstrophy complex. Burki T, Hamid R, Duffy P, Ransley P, Wilcox D, Mushtaq IJ Urol. 2006 Sep;176(3):1138-41; discussion 1141-2. Links Long-term followup of patients after redo bladder neck reconstruction for bladder exstrophy complex. Burki T, Hamid R, Duffy P, Ransley P, Wilcox D, Mushtaq I. Department of Urology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether redo bladder neck reconstruction is effective in achieving continence after a failed bladder neck reconstruction procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of patients with bladder exstrophy who had undergone redo bladder neck reconstruction. There were 30 patients in the study, including 20 boys and 10 girls. Mean patient age at redo bladder neck reconstruction was 9.3 years (range 3.2 to 15.5). The patients were divided into 3 groups on the basis of the preoperative pattern of incontinence--incomplete wetters, complete wetters and those on continuous suprapubic drainage. Of the patients 15 already had undergone bladder augmentation, 12 had undergone a Mitrofanoff procedure and 12 had been treated with bulking agents injected in the bladder neck in an attempt to achieve continence. Four patients had undergone more than 1 bladder neck procedure. The patients were investigated with a combination of noninvasive urodynamics, cystoscopy, cystogram and ultrasound. All patients underwent Mitchell's modification of Young-Dees-Leadbetter bladder neck reconstruction. Additional procedures performed included augmentation cystoplasty and Mitrofanoff formation. RESULTS: Mean followup was 6.9 years (range 1.2 to 15.5). Postoperatively 28 patients were using clean intermittent catheterization to empty the bladder (5 per urethra, 23 via Mitrofanoff). Two patients remained on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage. A total of 18 patients (60%) were dry postoperatively (80% of girls and 50% of boys). Among dry patients only 3 were performing clean intermittent catheterization per urethra and 15 via a Mitrofanoff channel. No patient was able to void per urethra without the need for clean intermittent catheterization. The 2 patients on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage continued to remain so. At night only 50% of the patients were dry (5 on free drainage, 4 on clean intermittent catheterization, 6 not on any drainage). Those patients who did not respond satisfactorily to redo bladder neck reconstruction underwent subsequent additional procedures, which included injection of bulking agents (3 patients), insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter (1), Mitrofanoff formation (2) and bladder augmentation plus Mitrofanoff channel (1). Postoperative complications included difficulty with clean intermittent catheterization (8 patients), perivesical leak (1), recurrent epididymo-orchitis (1), upper urinary tract dilatation (2) and incisional hernia (1). Bladder neck closure was being considered in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience redo bladder neck reconstruction cannot achieve continence with volitional voiding per urethra. Although redo bladder neck reconstruction can render a significant number of patients dry, it is only effective if performed in conjunction with augmentation. Failure of the initial bladder neck reconstruction may be a reflection of a bladder that is of inadequate capacity and/or compliance. Therefore, bladder augmentation should be considered in all patients requiring redo bladder neck reconstruction. Bladder neck closure may be a better alternative to redo bladder neck reconstruction. PMID: 16890709 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Links Modified bladder neck reconstruction in patients with incontinence after staged exstrophy/epispadias closures. [J Urol. 2006] PMID: 16753424 Continent urinary diversion and the exstrophy-epispadias complex. [J Urol. 2003] PMID: 12576862 Techniques to create continence in the failed bladder exstrophy closure patient. [J Urol. 1993] PMID: 8326573 Urinary continence after reconstruction of classical bladder exstrophy (73 cases) [Br J Urol. 1994] PMID: 8162510 Augmentation cystoplasty in the failed exstrophy reconstruction. [J Urol. 1988] PMID: 3352044 See all Related Articles... Display Summary Brief Abstract AbstractPlus Citation MEDLINE XML UI List LinkOut ASN.1 Related Articles Cited Articles Cited in Books CancerChrom Links Domain Links 3D Domain Links GEO DataSet Links Gene Links Gene (GeneRIF) Links Genome Links Project Links GENSAT Links GEO Profile Links HomoloGene Links Nucleotide Links Nucleotide (RefSeq) Links OMIA Links OMIM (calculated) Links OMIM (cited) Links BioAssay Links Compound Links Compound via MeSH Substance Links Substance via MeSH PMC Links Cited in PMC PopSet Links Probe Links Protein Links Protein (RefSeq) Links SNP Links Structure Links Taxonomy via GenBank UniGene Links UniSTS Links Show 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 Sort by Pub Date First Author Last Author Journal Send to Text File Printer Clipboard E-mail Order .
Department of Urology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether redo bladder neck reconstruction is effective in achieving continence after a failed bladder neck reconstruction procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of patients with bladder exstrophy who had undergone redo bladder neck reconstruction. There were 30 patients in the study, including 20 boys and 10 girls. Mean patient age at redo bladder neck reconstruction was 9.3 years (range 3.2 to 15.5). The patients were divided into 3 groups on the basis of the preoperative pattern of incontinence--incomplete wetters, complete wetters and those on continuous suprapubic drainage. Of the patients 15 already had undergone bladder augmentation, 12 had undergone a Mitrofanoff procedure and 12 had been treated with bulking agents injected in the bladder neck in an attempt to achieve continence. Four patients had undergone more than 1 bladder neck procedure. The patients were investigated with a combination of noninvasive urodynamics, cystoscopy, cystogram and ultrasound. All patients underwent Mitchell's modification of Young-Dees-Leadbetter bladder neck reconstruction. Additional procedures performed included augmentation cystoplasty and Mitrofanoff formation. RESULTS: Mean followup was 6.9 years (range 1.2 to 15.5). Postoperatively 28 patients were using clean intermittent catheterization to empty the bladder (5 per urethra, 23 via Mitrofanoff). Two patients remained on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage. A total of 18 patients (60%) were dry postoperatively (80% of girls and 50% of boys). Among dry patients only 3 were performing clean intermittent catheterization per urethra and 15 via a Mitrofanoff channel. No patient was able to void per urethra without the need for clean intermittent catheterization. The 2 patients on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage continued to remain so. At night only 50% of the patients were dry (5 on free drainage, 4 on clean intermittent catheterization, 6 not on any drainage). Those patients who did not respond satisfactorily to redo bladder neck reconstruction underwent subsequent additional procedures, which included injection of bulking agents (3 patients), insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter (1), Mitrofanoff formation (2) and bladder augmentation plus Mitrofanoff channel (1). Postoperative complications included difficulty with clean intermittent catheterization (8 patients), perivesical leak (1), recurrent epididymo-orchitis (1), upper urinary tract dilatation (2) and incisional hernia (1). Bladder neck closure was being considered in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience redo bladder neck reconstruction cannot achieve continence with volitional voiding per urethra. Although redo bladder neck reconstruction can render a significant number of patients dry, it is only effective if performed in conjunction with augmentation. Failure of the initial bladder neck reconstruction may be a reflection of a bladder that is of inadequate capacity and/or compliance. Therefore, bladder augmentation should be considered in all patients requiring redo bladder neck reconstruction. Bladder neck closure may be a better alternative to redo bladder neck reconstruction.
This abstract is being posted for educational purposes, as well as for comment and criticism, by the visitors to the Epididymitis Foundation website (www.EpididymitisFoundation.org). This abstract is representative of a larger article that is indexed on Medline.
Men's Health Web Ring
SurvivingProstateCancerWithoutSurgery.org
VasectomyFoundation.org
Prostatitis Foundation
( Prostatitis.org)
Disclaimer: Information provided on this web site is for educatonal purposes only. It is not a substitute for, nor can it replace advice from your own physician. The information on this site is not to be used for diagnosing or treating any health concerns that you may have. Testicular torsion, which is a medical emergency can be confused with epididymitis. You must see your own physician for diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, the information on this site is never guaranteed to be 100% accurate or 100% up to date. All the side effects of mentioned treatments, drugs, surgeries, or therapies cannot always be listed or be known. Errors and omissions may occur in any essay. See a competent physician for your health care needs.
EpididymitisFoundation.org™ Established December 11, 2002
