Urology · 2018
No Appendix is Too Short-Simultaneous Mitrofanoff Catheterizable Vesicostomy and Malone Antegrade Continence Enema (MACE) for Children with Spina Bifida.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kudela Grzegorz, Smyczek Dominika, Springer Alexander, Korecka Klaudia, Koszutski Tomasz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To present the results of simultaneous creation of both Mitrofanoff stoma and Malone antegrade continence stoma (MACE) using simple division of the appendix and a cecal extension method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2011 and November 2016, simultaneous Mitrofanoff and MACE was performed in 16 children (12 children-simple division of the appendix, 4 children-appendicovesicostomy and cecal extension of the appendix). Extension of the appendix was achieved by tubularization of the excised cecal flap next to the short appendicular stump. The new extended channel was then wrapped by cecal wall.
RESULTS: Follow-up was 40 months (10-74 months). Currently, in all children, both stomas are easily catheterizable. Obstruction of MACE occurred in 5 children (4 with split appendix, 1 with extended appendix); Mitrofanoff stomal stenosis occurred in 1 child. Endoscopic revision and prolonged catheterization of stenotic stomas were effective in all cases. Wound infection and dehiscence was noted in 2 children (both with split appendix). Drainage and intravenous antibiotics were effective. All Mitrofanoffs are continent. In 4 children there is incident minor leakage of the MACE (3 with split appendix and in 1 with extended appendix).
CONCLUSION: The split appendix procedure is feasible. Cecal extension of the appendix seems to be a good option when the appendix is too short for a simple split procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2011 and November 2016, simultaneous Mitrofanoff and MACE was performed in 16 children (12 children-simple division of the appendix, 4 children-appendicovesicostomy and cecal extension of the appendix). Extension of the appendix was achieved by tubularization of the excised cecal flap next to the short appendicular stump. The new extended channel was then wrapped by cecal wall.
RESULTS: Follow-up was 40 months (10-74 months). Currently, in all children, both stomas are easily catheterizable. Obstruction of MACE occurred in 5 children (4 with split appendix, 1 with extended appendix); Mitrofanoff stomal stenosis occurred in 1 child. Endoscopic revision and prolonged catheterization of stenotic stomas were effective in all cases. Wound infection and dehiscence was noted in 2 children (both with split appendix). Drainage and intravenous antibiotics were effective. All Mitrofanoffs are continent. In 4 children there is incident minor leakage of the MACE (3 with split appendix and in 1 with extended appendix).
CONCLUSION: The split appendix procedure is feasible. Cecal extension of the appendix seems to be a good option when the appendix is too short for a simple split procedure.