Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bladder Augmentation and Urinary Diversion for Neurogenic LUTS: Current Indications

  • Voiding Dysfunction and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (GH Badlani and HB Goldman, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Augmentation cystoplasty and urinary diversion are no longer commonplace in the management of patients with neurogenic bladder, but remain an important surgical treatment for those with refractory LUTS who have failed neuromodulation and onabotulinum toxin treatment or who are not candidates for those treatments. Augmentation is an option in patients who can perform intermittent catheterization and is usually performed with ileum or large intestine. Some patients benefit from continent cutaneous catherizable channels. Supravesical urinary diversion may be necessary in more severe cases. Ileovesicostomies are being supplanted by indwelling suprapubic catheters, and when catheters fail conduits may be a better option. When feasible, the diverted bladder should be excised to avoid pyocystis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. • Biers SB, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ. The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJUI. 2011;109:1280–93. An excellent review of the current role for augmentation cystoplasty.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Padmanabhan P, Scarpero HM, Milam DF, Dmochowski RR, Penson DF. Five-year cost analysis of intra-detrusor injection of botulinum toxin type A and augmentation cystoplasty for refractory neurogenic detrusor overactivity. World J Urol. 2011;29:51–7. This cost analysis compares onabotulinum toxin with augmentation cystoplasty, considering variables of efficacy duration and complication rates.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watanabe JH, Campbell JD, Ravelo A, et al. Cost analysis of interventions for antimuscarinic refractory patients with overactive bladder. Urology. 2010;76:835–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Venn SN, Mundy AR. Long-term results of augmentation cystoplasty. Eur Urol. 1998;34:40–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khoury JM, Webster GD. Augmentation cystoplasty. World J Urol. 1990;8:203–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. • Ivancić V, DeFoor W, Jackson E, et al. Progression of renal insufficiency in children and adolescents with neuropathic bladder is not accelerated by lower urinary tract reconstruction. J Urol. 2010;184:1768–74. A series of pediatric patients undergoing augmentation mostly had stable or improved renal function, whereas conventional wisdom would suggest they should undergo incontinent diversion.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cartwright PC, Snow BW. Bladder autoaugmentation: early clinical experience. J Urol. 1989;142:505–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rivas DA, Chancellor MB, Huang B, Epple A, Figueroa TE. Comparison of bladder rupture pressure after intestinal bladder augmentation (ileocystoplasty) and myomyotomy (autoaugmentation). Urology. 1996;48:40–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Perovic SV, Djordjevic ML, Kekic ZK, Vukadinovic VM. Detrusorectomy with rectus muscle hitch and backing. J Pediatr Surg. 2003;38:1637–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gurocak S, De Grier RP, Feitz W. Bladder augmentation without integration of intact bowel segments: critical review and future perspectives. J Urol. 2007;177:839–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rocha FT, Bruschini H, Figueiredo JA, et al. Use of an inflatable silicone balloon improves the success rate of bladder autoaugmentation at long-term followup. J Urol. 2011;185:2576–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaibafzadeh AM, Farrokhi-Khajeh-Pasha Y, Ostovaneh MR, Nezami BG, Hojjat A. Teapot ureterocystoplasty and ureteral Mitrofanoff channel for bilateral megaureters: technical points and surgical results of neurogenic bladders. J Urol. 2010;183:1168–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Johal NS, Hamid R, Aslam Z, et al. Ureterocystoplasty: long-term functional results. J Urol. 2008;179:2373–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barrett D. Surgery for the neuropathic patient (Committee 20). In: Abrams P, Khoury S, Wein A, editors. Incontinence. London: Health Publication Limited; 1999. p. 813–6.

    Google Scholar 

  15. • Gurung, Attar KH, Abdul-Rahman A, et al. Long-term outcomes of augmentation ileocystoplasty in patients with spinal cord injury: a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. BJU Int. 2012;109:1236–42. One of the largest and longest series of neurologically impaired patients who have undergone ileocystoplasty, demonstrating the long-term success and satisfaction.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaida P, Pinter AB, Harangi F, et al. Metabolic findings after colocystoplasty in children. Urology. 2003;62:542–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarosdy MF. Continent urinary diversion using cutaneous ileocecocystoplasty. Urology. 1992;40:102–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. • Choi J, Liu J, Boone T, Fletcher S. Ileocecal augmentation cystoplasty: “The Indiana Augment.”. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:1070–70. The largest available series demonstrating the success of ileocecocystoplasty as a combination augmentation and continent catheterizable channel.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shakeri S, Aminsharifi A, Jahanabadi Z. Application of appendicular-based cecal flap for less invasive augmentation cystoplasty: a novel technique. Urol Int. 2009;83:271–6. The authors present a novel technique for augmentation and catheterizable channel that uses a portion of cecum without requiring bowel anastomosis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams MC, Mitchell ME, Rink RC. Gastrocystoplasty: an alternative solution to the problem of urological reconstruction in the severely compromised patient. J Urol. 1988;140:1152–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Leonard MP, Dharamsi N, Williot PE. Outcome of gastrocystoplasty in tertiary pediatric urology practice. J Urol. 2000;164:947–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. • Leslie B, Lorenzo AJ, Moore K, et al. Long-term follow-up and time to event outcome analysis of continent catheterizable channels. J Urol. 2011;185:2298–302. This large and long series of pediatric patients with continent catheterizable channels illustrates the channel-related complication and reoperation rates.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van der Aa F, Joniau S, De Baets K, De Ridder D. Continent catheterizable vesicostomy in an adult population: success at high costs. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:487–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenberg L, Johnson J, Santucci R. Pilot study of the vesicocutaneous continent catheterizable stoma (Mitrofanoff) in adults – high complication rates. Urology. 2012;79:222–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Porter MP, Penson DF. Health related quality of life after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer: a systematic review and critical analysis of the literature. J Urol. 2005;173:1318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • Hellenthal NJ, Short SS, O’Connor RC, et al. Incontinent ileovesicostomy: long-term outcomes and complications. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:483–6. An excellent series of patients undergoing ileovesicostomy shows a high rate of complications and reoperations, including conversion to ileal conduit.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fazili T, Bhat TR, Masood S, Palmer JH, Mufti GR. Fate of the leftover bladder after supravesical urinary diversion for benign disease. J Urol. 2006;176:620–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eigner EB, Freiha FS. The fate of the remaining bladder following supravesical diversion. J Urol. 1990;144:31–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tung GA, Papanicolaou N. Pyocystis with urethral obstruction: percutaneous cystostomy as an alternative to surgery. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1990;41:350–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh G, Wilkinson JM, Thomas DG. Supravesical diversion for incontinence: a long-term follow-up. Br J Urol. 1997;79:348–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Doherty AP, Bellringer J. Stapled vaginal vesicostomy for pyocystis in the defunctioned female bladder. BJU Int. 1999;83:339–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lees JA, Falk RM, Stone WJ, McDougal WS. Pyocystis, pyonephrosis and perinephric abscess in end stage renal disease. J Urol. 1985;134:716–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Granados EA, Salvador J, Vicente J, Villavicencio H. Follow-up of the remaining bladder after supravesical urinary diversion. Eur Urol. 1996;29:308–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Oregon Health & Science University, CH10U, 3303 SW Bond Ave, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Kamran P. Sajadi

  2. Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Howard B Goldman

Authors
  1. Kamran P. Sajadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard B Goldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamran P. Sajadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sajadi, K.P., Goldman, H.B. Bladder Augmentation and Urinary Diversion for Neurogenic LUTS: Current Indications. Curr Urol Rep 13, 389–393 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0271-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0271-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation