Long-term renal function and continence status in patients with
Introduction: Urinary continence after cloacal repair is difficult to achieve
and renal outcome in patients with cloacal malformations has been scarcely
reported. As a result, we reviewed our experience with cloacal malformations
to determine the status of continence and the long-term renal function in these
Methods: A retrospective chart review from 1990 to 2003 identified 12 patients
with cloacal malformation (1 posterior, 4 complex and 7 classical) who underwent
surgical reconstruction. The confluence was defined as high (common
channel ≥ 3 cm) and low (< 3 cm) by cystovaginoscopy. Renal ultrasound,
voiding cystouretrogram, renal scan and sacral radiograph were performed
in all children. Most patients underwent 1-stage abdominoperineal pull-through,
applying the principle of total urogenital sinus mobilization. We collected data
regarding hydronephrosis, vesicoureteral reflux and split differential renal function.
Renal outcome was evaluated based on glomerular filtration rate and ageadjusted
serum creatinine values (μmol/L). Urinary continence was defined
as a dry interval > 4 hours.
Results: Patients’ mean age at surgery was 20 months (range 7–29 mo). Of
the 12 children who underwent cloacal repair, 7 (58.3%) had a common channel
≥ 3cm. Renal anomalies were identified in 3 of 12 (25%) girls: there were 2 solitary kidneys and 1 pelvic kidney. Lumbar–sacral radiography demonstrated bony abnormalities in 11 of the 12 (91.6%) cases: hemivertebra in 3 cases, sacral agenesis in 4 cases, hypoplastic sacrum in 3 cases and bifid sacrum in 1 case. Total urogenital sinus mobilization through an abdominoperineal approach in a single stage was performed in 8 girls. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 14 years (mean 8.5 yr). Eight (66.6%) children had dry intervals > 4 hours, 5 (62.5%) of them were on clean intermittent catheterization through a
Mitrofanoff channel and 1 (12.5%) was through the urethra. The remaining 2 (25%) patients were voiding spontaneously. Three (33.3%) patients were totally incontinent, and 1 (8.3%) patient was awaiting reconstruction. The mean measured glomerular filtration rate was 93.5 mL/min/1.73m2 (range 34–152 mL/min/1.73m2). Four (57.1%) of 7 patients who had a common channel ≥ 3 cm ended up needing augmentation cystoplasty, compared with none of the patients with a common channel < 3 cm (57.1% v. 0%, p = 0.038).
Conclusion: Urinary continence can be achieved in most patients with cloacal
malformation at the expense of major reconstructive surgery and despite the
presence of associated urological abnormalities. However, these children
harbour an important risk for renal impairment later in life and should be closely
How to Cite
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.