Ileocecal Bladder Augmentation in Myelodysplasia
Authors:
- 1 April 1988
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Urology
- Vol. 139 (4) , 786-788
Abstract
We discuss 14 children and adolescents with myelodysplasia who underwent bladder augmentation with the ileocecal segment. The bowel was not detubularized nor was the ileocecal valve intussuscepted. Urodynamic evaluation was performed before and after the procedure in 13 patients with a followup of 1 to 8 years. Postoperative capacity and compliance were normal but cecal contractions occurred in 8 patients despite adequate doses of anticholinergics. Reflux was demonstrated at capacity with a cecal contraction in 4 patients but upper tract dilatation and infection were not clinical problems. Three patients required reoperation for complications owing to ureteroileal stenosis and/or urinary tract calculi. Although the clinical results were satisfactory, detubularized segments of bowel with intussuscepted afferent loop valves to prevent reflux may resolve these problems in the future.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Augmentation and Substitution EnterocystoplastyJournal of Urology, 1986
- Bladder Augmentation in the Pediatric Neuropathic BladderJournal of Urology, 1983
- Further Experience with the Ileocecal Segment in Urinary ReconstructionJournal of Urology, 1982
- Urinary Diversion and Undiversion in ChildrenJournal of Urology, 1981
- Urinary Undiversion in Myelodysplasia: Criteria for Selection and Predictive Value of Urodynamic EvaluationJournal of Urology, 1980
- Video urodynamicsUrology, 1980
- Pediatric Urinary UndiversionJournal of Urology, 1980
- Bladder Augmentation—a Long‐Term ReviewBritish Journal of Urology, 1979
- Fate of 90 Children with Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion a Decade Later: Analysis of Complications, Pyelography, Renal Function and BacteriologyJournal of Urology, 1975
- SYNCHRONOUS CINE/PRESSURE/FLOW/CYSTO‐URETHROGRAPHY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO STRESS AND URGE INCONTINENCEBritish Journal of Urology, 1970