Bladder augmentation: urodynamic findings and clinical outcome in different augmentation techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the urodynamic findings and clinical outcome in different bladder augmentation techniques.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

From 1987 to 1996, 32 bladder augmentations were performed in 30 (M:F/18:12) patients. Mean age was 8.1 years (range: 1-15 years) and the mean follow-up period was 3.2 years (range: 6 months to 8 years). The following techniques were used for bladder augmentation: sigmoid colon in eleven cases, stomach in nine cases, ileum in six cases, ileocaecum in two cases and rectus abdominis muscle flap (RAMF) in four cases. Seven patients also underwent Mitrofanoff procedure to create a continent stoma.

RESULTS

According to the urodynamic evaluation the mean capacity was 237 +/- 120 ml in the colonic group, 115 +/- 86 ml in the gastric group, 240 +/- 45 ml in the ileal group, 250 +/- 0 ml in the ileocaecal group and 30 +/- 10 ml in the RAMF group. The mean compliance was 20.6 +/- 14 ml/cm H2O in the colonic group, 10.7 +/- 10.4 ml/cm H2O in the gastric group, 21.6 +/- 9 ml/cm H2O in the ileal group, 25.5 +/- 5.5 ml/cm H2O in the ileocaecal group, 5.8 +/- 1.5 ml/cm H2O in the RAMF group. The upper urinary tract was normal without hydronephrosis in all but except two patients. These two patients are still treated medically for chronic renal failure by the pediatric nephrology team. The patients are using their Mitrofanoff or native urethra with clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) or self-CIC technique for continence.

CONCLUSION

Comparing these five different techniques, ileal, ileocaecal and colonic groups were in advantage to achieve high volume reservoirs, followed by the gastric group. Regarding complications; in colonic cases, mucus problems, stone formation and surgical complications related to gastrointestinal tract (intestinal obstruction, perforation) were the most common ones. Perineal dermatitis was the main complication in gastric cases. In the ileal group, complication rate was low. Absence of mucus production and the low postoperative complication rates were the two major advantages of RAMF technique. However this technique is not recommended as an augmentation procedure due to its low capacity and compliance rates. Recently, ileal augmentation has became the most popular method in our institution.