Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Midterm outcomes of protection for upper urinary tract function by augmentation enterocystoplasty in patients with neurogenic bladder

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the midterm outcomes of protection for upper urinary tract (UUT) function by augmentation enterocystoplasty (AE) using a grading system for upper urinary tract dilation (UUTD) and a descriptive system for all urinary tract dysfunction (AUTD) in patients with neurogenic bladder.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 120 cases of AE from our database, which was collected between 2005 and 2013. UUTD grading system was developed by magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and AUTD system was described by video-urodynamics, MRU, isotope renography, etc. UUT function was evaluated by these systems before operation, and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months postoperatively. The indication, midterm outcomes and complications were evaluated.

Results

All patients had significant improvement for urodynamic parameters at 6 months postoperatively. Comparing the grades of UUTD and vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) before and after operation, the median grade of 95 UUTD ureters decreased from 3 to 0, and the percentage of 0 grade UUTD increased from 0 to 90.9 % at 36 months. The median grade of 96 VUR ureters decreased from 3 to 0, and the percentage of 0 grade VUR increased from 0 to 98.6 % at 36 months. The glomerular filtration rate of kidneys and serum creatinine level of patients had an increasing improvement after surgery.

Conclusions

The midterm follow-up using UUTD and AUTD systems indicates that AE is effective and safe for UUT protection. The patients with moderate and severe UUT deteriorations and renal function impairment resulting from VUR and UUTD have undergone the increasing improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Biers SM, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ (2012) The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 109:1280–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeFoor W, Minevich E, McEnery P et al (2003) Lower urinary tract reconstruction is safe and effective in children with end stage renal disease. J Urol 170:1497–1500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang F, Liao L (2012) Sigmoidocolocystoplasty with ureteral reimplantation for treatment of neurogenic bladder. Urology 80:440–445

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Duckett JW, Bellinger MF (1982) A plea for standardized grading of vesicoureteral reflux. Eur Urol 8:74–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fernbach SK, Maizels M, Conway JJ (1993) Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: introduction to the system used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Pediatr Radiol 23:478–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liao LM (2010) A plea for classification of comprehensive urinary tract dysfunction for neurogenic bladder. Chin J Rehabil Theory Pract 16:1101–1102 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liao LM, Zhang F (2012) Upper urinary tract dilation in the neurogenic bladder. In: Santucci RA, Chen M (eds) Urethers: anatomy physiology and disorders. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 99–110

    Google Scholar 

  9. Liao LM, Zhang F, Chen GQ (2014) New grading system for upper urinary tract dilation using magnetic resonance urography in patients with neurogenic bladder. BMC Urol 14:38–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim SY, Kim MJ, Yoon CS et al (2013) Comparison of the reliability of two hydronephrosis grading systems: the Society for Foetal Urology grading system vs. the Onen grading system. Clin Radiol 68:484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hayashi Y, Yamataka A, Kaneyama K et al (2006) Review of 86 patients with myelodysplasia and neurogenic bladder who underwent sigmoidocolocystoplasty and were followed more than 10 years. J Urol 176:1806–1809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keays MA, Guerra LA, Mihill J et al (2008) Reliability assessment of society for fetal urology ultrasound grading system for hydronephrosis. J Urol 180:1680–1683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Alfrey EJ, Salvatierra O Jr, Tanney DC et al (1997) Bladder augmentation can be problematic with renal failure and transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 11:672–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ivancić V, Defoor W, Jackson E et al (2010) Progression of renal insufficiency in children and adolescents with neuropathic bladder is not accelerated by lower urinary tract reconstruction. J Urol 184(4 Suppl):1768–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenwell TJ, Venn SN, Mundy AR (2001) Augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 88:511–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Skinner DG, Studer UE, Okada K et al (1995) Which patients are suitable for continent diversion or bladder substitution following cystectomy or other definite local treatment? Int J Urol 2(Suppl 2):105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen JL, Kuo HC (2009) Long-term outcomes of augmentation enterocystoplasty with an ileal segment in patients with spinal cord injury. J Formos Med Assoc 108:475–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Juhasz Z, Somogyi R, Vajda P et al (2008) Does the type of bladder augmentation influence the resolution of pre-existing vesicoureteral reflux? Urodynamic studies. Neurourol Urodyn 27:412–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. N’Dow J, Leung HY, Marshall C et al (1998) Bowel dysfunction after bladder reconstruction. J Urol 159:1470–1474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Demirbilek S et al (2000) Surgical complications of bladder augmentation: comparison between various enterocystoplasties in 133 patients. Urology 55:123–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the China National Key Technology R&D Program (No. 2012BAI34B02).

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, China Rehabilitation Research Center, 10 Jiaomen Beilu, Fentai District, Beijing, 100068, China

    Limin Liao, Fan Zhang & Guoqing Chen

  2. Department of Urology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Limin Liao, Fan Zhang & Guoqing Chen

  3. Center of Neural Injury and Repair, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing, China

    Limin Liao, Fan Zhang & Guoqing Chen

Authors
  1. Limin Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guoqing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Limin Liao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liao, L., Zhang, F. & Chen, G. Midterm outcomes of protection for upper urinary tract function by augmentation enterocystoplasty in patients with neurogenic bladder. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 2117–2125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0782-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0782-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation