Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term urodynamic findings following colo-, gastro- and ileocystoplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the urodynamic changes in patients who have undergone colocystoplasty (CCP), gastrocystoplasty (GCP) and ileocystoplasty (ICP) in a retrospective study. Changes in urinary continence, incidence of pathologic contractions before and after augmentation, alterations of urodynamic parameters were also examined.

Methods

Eighty-four patients were included in the study who underwent bladder augmentation between 1987 and 2017. Group I: 35 patients with CCP. Group II: 18 patients with GCP. Group III: 31 patients with ICP. Cystometry was performed at 3, 6, and every 12 months, then biannually after augmentation. Pre- and postoperative urodynamic changes were analysed statistically.

Results

In Group I, two patients and in Group III, one patient remained incontinent after CCP and ICP. Bladder capacity increased significantly, maximal intra-vesical pressure decreased and compliance improved in all groups (p < 0.001). Postoperative studies showed pathologic contractions in the augmented bladder in half of the patients with GCP, in 43% of patients after CCP and 26% of patients with ICP.

Conclusion

From the urodynamic point of view, ileum is the most adequate option in the long term. Contractions after augmentation might be caused by the remaining peristalsis of the detubularised segment. Further investigations are needed to evaluate pathologic contractions that remained after detubularisation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Mitchell ME (2003) Bladder augmentation in children: where have we been and where are we going? BJU Int 92:29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rink RC (1999) Bladder augmentation. Options, outcomes, future. Urol Clin North Am 26:111–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Juhasz Z, Jainsch M, Hock A, Farkas A, Pinter A (2000) The role and value of urodynamics in the follow-up of children with surgical bladder augmentation and substitution (article in Hungarian). Orv Hetil 141:1561–1565

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scheepe JR, Blok BF, Hoen LA (2017) Applicability of botulinum toxin type A in paediatric neurogenic bladder management. Curr Opin Urol 27:14–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Suskind AM, Dunn RL, Morgan DM, DeLancey JOL, McGuire EJ, Wei JT (2014) The michigan incontinence symptom index (M-ISI): A clinical measure for type, severity, and bother related to urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 33:1128–1134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vajda P, Pinter AB, Harangi F, Farkas A, Vastyan AM, Oberritter Z (2003) Metabolic findings after colocystoplasty in children. Urology 62:542–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinter AB, Vajda P, Juhasz Z (2008) Bladder augmentation in childhood: metabolic consequences and surgical complications – review and own investigations. J Pediatr Surg Spec 2:10–15

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kispal Z, Balogh D, Erdei O, Kehl D, Juhasz Z, Vastyan AM, Farkas A, Pinter AB, Vajda P (2011) Complications after bladder augmentation or substitution in children: a prospective study of 86 patients. BJU Int 108:282–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Juhasz Z, Somogyi R, Vajda P, Oberritter Z, Fathi K, Pinter AB (2008) Does the type of bladder augmenation influence the resolution of pre-existing vesicoureteral reflux? Urodynamic studies. Neurourol Urodyn 27:412–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vajda P, Kaiser L, Magyarlaki T, Farkas A, Vastyan AM, Pinter AB (2002) Histological findings after colocystoplasty and gastrocystoplasty. J Urol 168:698–701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kardos DJ, Kereskai L, Tornoczky T, Farkas K, Davidovics A, Farkas A, Vastyan AM, Pinter AB, Vajda P (2019) Re-evaluation of histological findings after colocystoplasty and gastrocystoplasty. J Pediatr Urol 15:651.e1-651.e8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. DeFoor W, Minevich E, Reeves D, Tackett L, Wacksman J, Sheldon C (2003) Gastrocystoplasty: long-term followup. J Urol 17:1647–1650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Quek ML, Ginsberg DA (2003) Long-term urodynamics followup of bladder augmentation for neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 169:195–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Obermayr F, Szavay P, Schaefer J, Fuchs J (2011) Outcome of augmentation cystoplasty and bladder substitution in a pediatric age group. Eur J Pediatr Surg 21:116–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Radomski SB, Herschom S, Stone AR (1995) Urodynamic comparison of ileum vs. sigmoid augmentation cystoplasty for neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 14:231–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kilic N, Celayir S, Elicevik M, Sarimurat N, Söylet Y, Büyükünal C, Danişmend N (1999) Bladder augmentation: urodynamic findings and clinical outcome in different augmentation techniques. Eur J Pediatr Surg 9:29–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lopez Pereira P, Moreno Valle JA, Espinosa L, Alonso Dorrego JM, Martinez Urrutia MJ, Lobato Romera R, Jaureguizar Monereo E (2009) Are urodynamic studies really needed during bladder augmentation follow-up? J Pediatr Urol 5:30–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Demirbilek S, Barthold JS, González R (2000) Surgical complications of bladder augmentation: comparison between various entercystoplasties in 133 patients. Urology 55:123–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical School, Department of Pediatrics, Surgical Division, University of Pécs, 7 József Attila Street, Pécs, 7623, Hungary

    ZS. Juhász, D. Kardos & P. Vajda

  2. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Petz Aladár University Teaching Hospital, 2-4 Vasvári Pál Street, Győr, 9023, Hungary

    Z. Kispál

Authors
  1. ZS. Juhász
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Z. Kispál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Kardos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Vajda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Data collection was done by ZSolt Juhász, Zoltán Kispál, Dániel Kardos and Péter Vajda. ZSolt Juhász and Zoltán Kispál and Dániel Kardos wrote the manuscript. Peter Vajda made the figures and tables to the manuscript. Review was done by ZSolt Juhász, Zoltán Kispál, Dániel Kardos and Péter Vajda.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. Kispál.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Juhász, Z., Kispál, Z., Kardos, D. et al. Long-term urodynamic findings following colo-, gastro- and ileocystoplasty. Pediatr Surg Int 40, 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05714-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05714-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation