Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy: Risk Factors and Prevention

Karl S. Benz, John Jayman, Karen Doersch, Mahir Maruf, Timothy Baumgartner, Matthew Kasprenski, John Phillip Gearhart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To characterize the causes of re-augmentation in patients with classic bladder exstrophy (CBE). Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional database of 1327 exstrophy-epispadias complex patients was reviewed for patients with CBE who underwent more than 1 augmentation cystoplasty (AC) procedure. Data regarding bladder capacities, complications following AC, and reasons for re-augmentation were evaluated. Results: A total of 166 patients with CBE underwent AC. Of these, 67 (40.4%) were included in the control group and 17 (10%) patients underwent a re-augmentation. There were several indications for re-augmentation including continued small bladder capacity (17 of 17), inadequate bladder necks (8 of 17), failed rattail augmentation (2 of 17), stomal incontinence (1 of 17), a urethrocutaneous fistula (1 of 17), and an hourglass augmentation (1 of 17). Of note, 5 of the 17 patients (29%) had a re-augmentation procedure with a ureteral reimplantation. The sigmoid colon was the most commonly used bowel segment in the failed initial AC (8 patients), whereas the ileum was the most commonly used segment during re-augmentation (12 patients). In the re-augmentation cohort, the mean amount of bowel used during the first AC procedure was 12 cm (standard deviation [SD] 3.6) compared with 19 cm (SD 5.0) during re-augmentation. The mean amount of bowel used for control group augmentations was 20.8 cm (SD 4). The mean re-augmentation preoperative bladder capacity of 100 mL (SD 60) immediately increased after re-augmentation to 180.8 mL (SD 56.4) (P =.0001). Conclusion: Bladder re-augmentation is most commonly required in the setting of a small bladder capacity after an initial AC, when an insufficient amount of bowel is used during the first AC procedure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUrology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Bladder Exstrophy
Urinary Bladder
Epispadias
Control Groups
Replantation
Sigmoid Colon
Ileum
Fistula
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Benz, K. S., Jayman, J., Doersch, K., Maruf, M., Baumgartner, T., Kasprenski, M., & Gearhart, J. P. (Accepted/In press). Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy: Risk Factors and Prevention. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.003

Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy : Risk Factors and Prevention. / Benz, Karl S.; Jayman, John; Doersch, Karen; Maruf, Mahir; Baumgartner, Timothy; Kasprenski, Matthew; Gearhart, John Phillip.

In: Urology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Benz KS, Jayman J, Doersch K, Maruf M, Baumgartner T, Kasprenski M et al. Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy: Risk Factors and Prevention. Urology. 2018 Jan 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.003
Benz, Karl S. ; Jayman, John ; Doersch, Karen ; Maruf, Mahir ; Baumgartner, Timothy ; Kasprenski, Matthew ; Gearhart, John Phillip. / Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy : Risk Factors and Prevention. In: Urology. 2018.
@article{fbef9cde66384afd916a825107cdb131,
title = "Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy: Risk Factors and Prevention",
abstract = "Objective: To characterize the causes of re-augmentation in patients with classic bladder exstrophy (CBE). Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional database of 1327 exstrophy-epispadias complex patients was reviewed for patients with CBE who underwent more than 1 augmentation cystoplasty (AC) procedure. Data regarding bladder capacities, complications following AC, and reasons for re-augmentation were evaluated. Results: A total of 166 patients with CBE underwent AC. Of these, 67 (40.4{\%}) were included in the control group and 17 (10{\%}) patients underwent a re-augmentation. There were several indications for re-augmentation including continued small bladder capacity (17 of 17), inadequate bladder necks (8 of 17), failed rattail augmentation (2 of 17), stomal incontinence (1 of 17), a urethrocutaneous fistula (1 of 17), and an hourglass augmentation (1 of 17). Of note, 5 of the 17 patients (29{\%}) had a re-augmentation procedure with a ureteral reimplantation. The sigmoid colon was the most commonly used bowel segment in the failed initial AC (8 patients), whereas the ileum was the most commonly used segment during re-augmentation (12 patients). In the re-augmentation cohort, the mean amount of bowel used during the first AC procedure was 12 cm (standard deviation [SD] 3.6) compared with 19 cm (SD 5.0) during re-augmentation. The mean amount of bowel used for control group augmentations was 20.8 cm (SD 4). The mean re-augmentation preoperative bladder capacity of 100 mL (SD 60) immediately increased after re-augmentation to 180.8 mL (SD 56.4) (P =.0001). Conclusion: Bladder re-augmentation is most commonly required in the setting of a small bladder capacity after an initial AC, when an insufficient amount of bowel is used during the first AC procedure.",
author = "Benz, {Karl S.} and John Jayman and Karen Doersch and Mahir Maruf and Timothy Baumgartner and Matthew Kasprenski and Gearhart, {John Phillip}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.003",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bladder Re-augmentation in Classic Bladder Exstrophy

T2 - Risk Factors and Prevention

AU - Benz, Karl S.

AU - Jayman, John

AU - Doersch, Karen

AU - Maruf, Mahir

AU - Baumgartner, Timothy

AU - Kasprenski, Matthew

AU - Gearhart, John Phillip

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective: To characterize the causes of re-augmentation in patients with classic bladder exstrophy (CBE). Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional database of 1327 exstrophy-epispadias complex patients was reviewed for patients with CBE who underwent more than 1 augmentation cystoplasty (AC) procedure. Data regarding bladder capacities, complications following AC, and reasons for re-augmentation were evaluated. Results: A total of 166 patients with CBE underwent AC. Of these, 67 (40.4%) were included in the control group and 17 (10%) patients underwent a re-augmentation. There were several indications for re-augmentation including continued small bladder capacity (17 of 17), inadequate bladder necks (8 of 17), failed rattail augmentation (2 of 17), stomal incontinence (1 of 17), a urethrocutaneous fistula (1 of 17), and an hourglass augmentation (1 of 17). Of note, 5 of the 17 patients (29%) had a re-augmentation procedure with a ureteral reimplantation. The sigmoid colon was the most commonly used bowel segment in the failed initial AC (8 patients), whereas the ileum was the most commonly used segment during re-augmentation (12 patients). In the re-augmentation cohort, the mean amount of bowel used during the first AC procedure was 12 cm (standard deviation [SD] 3.6) compared with 19 cm (SD 5.0) during re-augmentation. The mean amount of bowel used for control group augmentations was 20.8 cm (SD 4). The mean re-augmentation preoperative bladder capacity of 100 mL (SD 60) immediately increased after re-augmentation to 180.8 mL (SD 56.4) (P =.0001). Conclusion: Bladder re-augmentation is most commonly required in the setting of a small bladder capacity after an initial AC, when an insufficient amount of bowel is used during the first AC procedure.

AB - Objective: To characterize the causes of re-augmentation in patients with classic bladder exstrophy (CBE). Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional database of 1327 exstrophy-epispadias complex patients was reviewed for patients with CBE who underwent more than 1 augmentation cystoplasty (AC) procedure. Data regarding bladder capacities, complications following AC, and reasons for re-augmentation were evaluated. Results: A total of 166 patients with CBE underwent AC. Of these, 67 (40.4%) were included in the control group and 17 (10%) patients underwent a re-augmentation. There were several indications for re-augmentation including continued small bladder capacity (17 of 17), inadequate bladder necks (8 of 17), failed rattail augmentation (2 of 17), stomal incontinence (1 of 17), a urethrocutaneous fistula (1 of 17), and an hourglass augmentation (1 of 17). Of note, 5 of the 17 patients (29%) had a re-augmentation procedure with a ureteral reimplantation. The sigmoid colon was the most commonly used bowel segment in the failed initial AC (8 patients), whereas the ileum was the most commonly used segment during re-augmentation (12 patients). In the re-augmentation cohort, the mean amount of bowel used during the first AC procedure was 12 cm (standard deviation [SD] 3.6) compared with 19 cm (SD 5.0) during re-augmentation. The mean amount of bowel used for control group augmentations was 20.8 cm (SD 4). The mean re-augmentation preoperative bladder capacity of 100 mL (SD 60) immediately increased after re-augmentation to 180.8 mL (SD 56.4) (P =.0001). Conclusion: Bladder re-augmentation is most commonly required in the setting of a small bladder capacity after an initial AC, when an insufficient amount of bowel is used during the first AC procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043996771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043996771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.003

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 29447946

AN - SCOPUS:85043996771

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -