Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits: Top down or bottom up?

J. Berkowitz, Amanda C. North, R. Tripp, J. P. Gearhart, Y. Lakshmanan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: During augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedures, conduits are usually implanted into the posterior bladder wall. Anatomical considerations may necessitate an anterior conduit. To compare the relative drainage efficiency in patients with posterior and anterior conduits, we studied their rates of bladder stone formation and urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review identified exstrophy patients who underwent augmentation and Mitrofanoff between 1991 and 2003. Patients with 3 years or greater follow-up were included. Fifty-four patients fit this criterion, with a conduit implanted anteriorly (33) or posteriorly (21). We compared rates of bladder stone formation and UTI. Stomal revisions and the status of the bladder neck were also noted. Results: Stone formation and UTI rates were higher in the anterior conduits, although only UTI showed a statistically significant difference. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, including age and sex. The rates of stomal complications and the bladder neck status were also similar. Conclusions: Patients with anterior conduits had an increased risk of UTI and bladder stone formation compared to those with posterior conduits, although this was not significant in the case of bladder stone rate. This may indicate sub-optimal bladder drainage and should be addressed with careful preoperative counseling and close follow-up.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)122-125
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Pediatric Urology
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Urinary Bladder Calculi
Urinary Tract Infections
Urinary Bladder
Drainage
Urinary Calculi
Counseling
Age Groups
Demography
Efficiency

Keywords

  • Bladder catheterization
  • Bladder exstrophy
  • Urinary bladder calculi

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits : Top down or bottom up? / Berkowitz, J.; North, Amanda C.; Tripp, R.; Gearhart, J. P.; Lakshmanan, Y.

In: Journal of Pediatric Urology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 04.2009, p. 122-125.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berkowitz, J. ; North, Amanda C. ; Tripp, R. ; Gearhart, J. P. ; Lakshmanan, Y. / Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits : Top down or bottom up?. In: Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2009 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 122-125.
@article{31710c55afc443b2a3db42f6656ca85d,
title = "Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits: Top down or bottom up?",
abstract = "Objective: During augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedures, conduits are usually implanted into the posterior bladder wall. Anatomical considerations may necessitate an anterior conduit. To compare the relative drainage efficiency in patients with posterior and anterior conduits, we studied their rates of bladder stone formation and urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review identified exstrophy patients who underwent augmentation and Mitrofanoff between 1991 and 2003. Patients with 3 years or greater follow-up were included. Fifty-four patients fit this criterion, with a conduit implanted anteriorly (33) or posteriorly (21). We compared rates of bladder stone formation and UTI. Stomal revisions and the status of the bladder neck were also noted. Results: Stone formation and UTI rates were higher in the anterior conduits, although only UTI showed a statistically significant difference. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, including age and sex. The rates of stomal complications and the bladder neck status were also similar. Conclusions: Patients with anterior conduits had an increased risk of UTI and bladder stone formation compared to those with posterior conduits, although this was not significant in the case of bladder stone rate. This may indicate sub-optimal bladder drainage and should be addressed with careful preoperative counseling and close follow-up.",
keywords = "Bladder catheterization, Bladder exstrophy, Urinary bladder calculi",
author = "J. Berkowitz and North, {Amanda C.} and R. Tripp and Gearhart, {J. P.} and Y. Lakshmanan",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.11.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "122--125",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Urology",
issn = "1477-5131",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits

T2 - Top down or bottom up?

AU - Berkowitz, J.

AU - North, Amanda C.

AU - Tripp, R.

AU - Gearhart, J. P.

AU - Lakshmanan, Y.

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - Objective: During augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedures, conduits are usually implanted into the posterior bladder wall. Anatomical considerations may necessitate an anterior conduit. To compare the relative drainage efficiency in patients with posterior and anterior conduits, we studied their rates of bladder stone formation and urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review identified exstrophy patients who underwent augmentation and Mitrofanoff between 1991 and 2003. Patients with 3 years or greater follow-up were included. Fifty-four patients fit this criterion, with a conduit implanted anteriorly (33) or posteriorly (21). We compared rates of bladder stone formation and UTI. Stomal revisions and the status of the bladder neck were also noted. Results: Stone formation and UTI rates were higher in the anterior conduits, although only UTI showed a statistically significant difference. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, including age and sex. The rates of stomal complications and the bladder neck status were also similar. Conclusions: Patients with anterior conduits had an increased risk of UTI and bladder stone formation compared to those with posterior conduits, although this was not significant in the case of bladder stone rate. This may indicate sub-optimal bladder drainage and should be addressed with careful preoperative counseling and close follow-up.

AB - Objective: During augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedures, conduits are usually implanted into the posterior bladder wall. Anatomical considerations may necessitate an anterior conduit. To compare the relative drainage efficiency in patients with posterior and anterior conduits, we studied their rates of bladder stone formation and urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review identified exstrophy patients who underwent augmentation and Mitrofanoff between 1991 and 2003. Patients with 3 years or greater follow-up were included. Fifty-four patients fit this criterion, with a conduit implanted anteriorly (33) or posteriorly (21). We compared rates of bladder stone formation and UTI. Stomal revisions and the status of the bladder neck were also noted. Results: Stone formation and UTI rates were higher in the anterior conduits, although only UTI showed a statistically significant difference. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, including age and sex. The rates of stomal complications and the bladder neck status were also similar. Conclusions: Patients with anterior conduits had an increased risk of UTI and bladder stone formation compared to those with posterior conduits, although this was not significant in the case of bladder stone rate. This may indicate sub-optimal bladder drainage and should be addressed with careful preoperative counseling and close follow-up.

KW - Bladder catheterization

KW - Bladder exstrophy

KW - Urinary bladder calculi

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62149117618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62149117618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.11.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 19083271

AN - SCOPUS:62149117618

VL - 5

SP - 122

EP - 125

JO - Journal of Pediatric Urology

JF - Journal of Pediatric Urology

SN - 1477-5131

IS - 2

ER -