Long-term functional outcomes after bladder exstrophy repair: A single, low-volume centre experience

Authors

  • Ossamah Alsowayan 1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, The Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Urology, College of Medicine and King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
  • John Paul Capolicchio Department of Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, The Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
  • Roman Jednak Department of Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, The Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
  • Mohamed El-Sherbiny Department of Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, The Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3104

Abstract

Introduction: In this study, we present our experience managing bladder exstrophy (BE) in a low-volume centre over 24 years.

Methods: Charts of patients with BE between 1990 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with BE closure and ≥5 years followup were included. BE closure was carried out in the first two days of life using either complete primary repair (CPRE) or modernstaged repair (MSRE). Daytime urinary continence (UC) was evaluated by the age of five years. Patients were considered continent if completely dry for ≥3 hours using no or one pad/day. Incontinent patients with bladder capacity (BC) ≥100 ml underwent bladder neck reconstruction (BNR) and bilateral ureteric reimplantation
(BUR), while patients with BC <100ml underwent simultaneous augmentation cystoplasty (ACP).

Results: Sixteen (16) patients met our inclusion criteria with a mean followup time of 18±5 years. Ten (10) underwent CPRE, while six underwent MSRE. Four surgeons were involved in patients’  management. Two surgeons had previous experience in BE surgery while working in other institutions. Complications included dehiscence in five patients, vesicocutanous fistula in three and breakthrough UTI in eight. Continence was achieved in 15/16 patients: two after BE closure only, seven with BNR, and six who required ACP and BNR.

Conclusions: Despite the small number of patients and the reterospective nature of the study, some observations are noteworthy. Although continence rate post-primary BE closure was initially low, it rose to 93.8% after auxiliary continence procedures. This might be at the cost of urethral voiding, which was achieved in 60% of patients. Our small cohort did not show clear advantage of CPRE vs. MSRE. Our outcomes may not be different from high-volume centres due to the fact that two exstrophy-experienced surgeons performed most primary or subsequent surgeries. For this reason, we recommend assigning designated centres for BE repair for both new and repeat cases.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-03-14

How to Cite

Alsowayan, O., Capolicchio, J. P., Jednak, R., & El-Sherbiny, M. (2016). Long-term functional outcomes after bladder exstrophy repair: A single, low-volume centre experience. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 10(3-4), E94–8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3104

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 3-4 (2016): CUAJ March

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.