Current Treatment Options in Pediatrics

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 14–23 | Cite as

Contemporary Management of Neurogenic Bladder in Children

  • Diana K. Bowen
  • Dana A. Weiss
Urology (P Reddy and B Vanderbrink, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Urology


Purpose of review

The management of neurogenic bladder (NGB) is an evolving task that derives its principles from the long-term goals of renal protection and optimization of quality of life. This review describes contemporary diagnostic techniques as well as expanding treatment options.

Recent findings

Innovation within the field has chiefly been in the form of new modalities for maintaining low bladder pressures and developing minimally invasive approaches to surgical reconstruction. A new and quickly expanding area of interest is “transitional care” (also known as congenitalism) for the aging pediatric patient with NGB with a particular emphasis on establishing adequate adult care for medical and urologic needs.


Adhering to timeless principles while innovating in the field to maximize quality of care is critical to continue to provide the best care for NGB patients.


Neurogenic bladder Spina bifida Transitional care 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Diana K. Bowen declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dana A. Weiss declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

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

  1. 1.
    Sawin KJ, et al. The National Spina Bifida Patient Registry: profile of a large cohort of participants from the first 10 clinics. J Pediatr. 2015;166(2):444–50. e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry JG, et al. Health inequity in children and youth with chronic health conditions. Pediatrics. 2010;126(Suppl 3):S111–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atta CA, et al. Global birth prevalence of spina bifida by folic acid fortification status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(1):e24–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chan YY, Sandlin SK, Kurzrock EA. Urological outcomes of myelomeningocele and lipomeningocele. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(5):35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lloyd JC, et al. Contemporary epidemiological trends in complex congenital genitourinary anomalies. J Urol. 2013;190(4 Suppl):1590–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopps CV, Kropp KA. Preservation of renal function in children with myelomeningocele managed with basic newborn evaluation and close followup. J Urol. 2003;169(1):305–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adzick NS. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: trials and tribulations. Isabella Forshall Lecture. J Pediatr Surg. 2012;47(2):273–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clayton DB, et al. Long-term urological impact of fetal myelomeningocele closure. J Urol. 2011;186(4 Suppl):1581–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee NG, et al. In utero closure of myelomeningocele does not improve lower urinary tract function. J Urol. 2012;188(4 Suppl):1567–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dudley AG, et al. Interrater reliability in pediatric urodynamic tracings: a pilot study. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 2):865–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cameron AP, et al. Best practice policy statement on urodynamic antibiotic prophylaxis in the non-index patient. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(4):915–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Snow-Lisy DC, et al. Reassessing the utility of routine urine culture with urodynamics: UTI incidence and risk factors. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(4):372 e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Ouyang L, et al. Characteristics and survival of patients with end stage renal disease and spina bifida in the United States renal data system. J Urol. 2015;193(2):558–64. This matched cohort study used the US Renal Data System to compare SB patients who developed ESRD to the rest of the population over a four year period. SB patients were younger (41 vs. 62 years) and less likely to undergo renal transplantation however mortality overall was not affected. This underscores the importance of contemporary management continuing to focus on renal protection.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaefer M, et al. Improved bladder function after prophylactic treatment of the high risk neurogenic bladder in newborns with myelomentingocele. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 2):1068–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dik P, et al. Early start to therapy preserves kidney function in spina bifida patients. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):908–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koh CJ, et al. Bladder and external urethral sphincter function after prenatal closure of myelomeningocele. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2232–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chaudhry R, et al. Risk factors associated with recurrent urinary tract infection in neurogenic bladders managed by clean intermittent catheterization. Urology. 2017;102:213–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaye IY, Payan M, Vemulakonda VM. Association between clean intermittent catheterization and urinary tract infection in infants and toddlers with spina bifida. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(5):284 e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen MT, et al. Overnight catheter drainage in children with poorly compliant bladders improves post-obstructive diuresis and urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 2):1633–6. discussion 1636.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan MK, et al. Botulinum toxin injection in the pediatric population with medically refractory neuropathic bladder. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(2):104 e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Figueroa V, et al. Single-center experience with botulinum toxin endoscopic detrusor injection for the treatment of congenital neuropathic bladder in children: effect of dose adjustment, multiple injections, and avoidance of reconstructive procedures. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(2):368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi EK, et al. Effects of intravesical electrical stimulation therapy on urodynamic patterns for children with spina bifida: a 10-year experience. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(6 Pt A):798–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kiddoo DA, et al. Urethral dilation as treatment for neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 2):1831–3. discussion 1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlomer BJ, Saperston K, Baskin L. National trends in augmentation cystoplasty in the 2000s and factors associated with patient outcomes. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1352–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Husmann D.A. Lessons learned from the management of adults who have undergone augmentation for spina bifida and bladder exstrophy: incidence and management of the non-lethal complications of bladder augmentation. Int J Urol, 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szymanski KM, et al. Mortality after bladder augmentation in children with spina bifida. J Urol. 2015;193(2):643–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szymanski KM, et al. Long-term outcomes of catheterizable continent urinary channels: what do you use, where you put it, and does it matter? J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(4):210 e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Snodgrass W, et al. Upper tract changes in patients with neurogenic bladder and sustained pressures > 40 cm following bladder neck surgery without augmentation. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(4):744–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    •• Grimsby GM, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Bladder Neck Reconstruction without Augmentation Cystoplasty in Children. J Urol. 2016;195(1):155–61. This study revised a previous analysis of patients who underwent isolated bladder neck reconstruction without augmentation with less reassuring long-term results. At a mean 4.9 years follow-up, the estimated 10 year cumulative incidence was 30% for augmentation cystoplasty, 70% for new continence procedures, more than 50% developed upper tract changes, and chronic kidney disease in 20%.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Catti M, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter in children—voiding or emptying? An evaluation of functional results in 44 patients. J Urol. 2008;180(2):690–3. discussion 693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silveri M, et al. Endoscopic treatment for urinary incontinence in children with a congenital neuropathic bladder. Br J Urol. 1998;82(5):694–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Godbole P, et al. Endourethral injection of bulking agents for urinary incontinence in children. BJU Int. 2003;91(6):536–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gundeti MS, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic reconstructive surgery in the lower urinary tract. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(4):333–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Famakinwa OJ, Rosen AM, Gundeti MS. Robot-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy technique and outcomes of extravesical and intravesical approaches. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):831–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gundeti MS, et al. A multi-institutional study of perioperative and functional outcomes for pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(6):386 e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murthy P, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in children: updated interim results. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1069–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moscardi PRM, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter and MACE procedure on a pediatric patient. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(5):527–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tuite GF, et al. Urological outcome of the Xiao procedure in children with myelomeningocele and lipomyelomeningocele undergoing spinal cord detethering. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1735–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xiao CG, et al. An artificial somatic-autonomic reflex pathway procedure for bladder control in children with spina bifida. J Urol. 2005;173(6):2112–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee B, et al. British Association of Paediatric Urologists consensus statement on the management of the neuropathic bladder. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(2):76–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Szymanski KM, et al. All incontinence is not created equal: impact of urinary and fecal incontinence on quality of life in adults with spina bifida. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 2):885–91. This study utilized a recently validated quality of life instrument specific to the SB population. The QUALAS-A is validated for adults currently, showing us long term patient-reported outcomes that reinforce both fecal and urinary incontinence lower quality of life, and has served as a starting point for the development of a validated tool for pediatric patients.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lee NG, et al. The effect of spinal cord level on sexual function in the spina bifida population. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(3):142 e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Choi EK, Ji Y, Han SW. Sexual function and quality of life in young men with spina bifida: could it be neglected aspects in clinical practice? Urology. 2017;108:225–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arata M, et al. Pregnancy outcome and complications in women with spina bifida. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(9):743–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shepard CL, et al Pregnancy among mothers with spina bifida. J Pediatr Urol, 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Urology, The Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations