Need for urodynamic evaluation as a regular follow-up tool in assessment of long-term urological outcomes in patients with sacrococcygeal teratoma.

AIM: To assess the long-term urologic outcomes in follow-up of patients of sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) using urodynamic study (UDS) in addition to clinical and radiologic evaluation.

METHODS

A prospective study of clinical, radiological and urodynamic evaluation in patients with SCT who underwent resection between January 2002-June 2015 and were followed up till January 2016 was conducted.

RESULTS

Total 57 patients, 42 (73.7%) females and 15 (26.3%) males with 35 (62.4%) following treatment for benign and 22 (38.5%) for malignant disease were included. Twenty-eight of 57 (49.12%) had urological problems. Clinical complaints in 21 (36.8%) patients included stress urinary incontinence-14 (66.7%), enuresis-9 (42.9%), and poor stream or dribbling of urine-6 (28.6%). Eight of 51 patients (15.7%) had abnormal ultrasound findings, which included contracted, trabeculated thick walled bladder (3), bilateral hydronephrosis (3) and significant post void residue (PVR) (6). Seven of 57 underwent micturating cystourethrogram (MCU), 5 had an abnormal report[significant PVR (4), small trabeculated bladder (3), reflux (2) and large capacity bladder (1)]. Urodynamic study was done in 27 patients, 18/27 (66.7%) had abnormalities. Six patients without any clinical or ultrasonographic abnormalities had abnormal UDS. Total 28 (49.12%) had urological comorbidities. Three patients had overactive bladder, five dysfunctional voiding, one underactive bladder and one had giggle incontinence. Children were managed by behaviour therapy and pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Urodynamic evaluation could detect abnormalities in patients who had no urinary complaints or abnormality on ultrasound. The abnormalities have a potential for progressive upper tract damage. Urodynamics should be an integral part of urological surveillance in patients operated for SCT.

TYPE OF STUDY: Prognostic study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II (Prospective cohort study).