Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current approaches to the urologic care of children with spina bifida

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most children born with spina bifida, the most common disabling congenital abnormality, have normal renal function. If left untreated, more than half of these children will have serious renal deterioration by age 5. This deterioration is secondary to hostile neurogenic changes of the bladder. Renal development should follow a normal course when close evaluation and intervention are undertaken during the newborn period and toddler years. As children age, attention is directed to quality-of-life issues, such as the establishment of urinary and bowel continence. Teenagers face the responsibility of understanding their medical condition and should begin to assume responsibility for their own care with eventual transition to the adult health care system. This article describes the foundations of management, beginning at birth, for caring for children with spina bifida.

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 and Recommended Reading

  1. Bauer SB, Joseph DB: Management of the obstructed urinary tract associated with neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 1990, 17:395–406.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Teichman JMH, Scherz HC, Kim KD, et al.: An alternative approach to myelodysplasia management: aggressive observation and prompt intervention. J Urol 1994, 152:807–811.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Klose AG, Sackett CK, Mesrobian HG: Management of children with myelodysplasia: urological alternatives. J Urol 1990, 144:1446–1449.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Edelstein RA, Bauer SB, Kelly MD, et al.: The long-term urological response of neonates with myelodysplasia treated proactively with intermittent catheterization and anticholinergic therapy. J Urol 1995, 154:1500–1504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hopps CV, Kropp KA: Preservation of renal function in children with myelomeningocele managed with basic newborn evaluation and close followup. J Urol 2003, 169:305–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bauer SB: The management of the myelodysplastic child: a paradigm shift. Br J Urol 2003, 92:23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Joseph DB, Bauer SB, Colodny AH, et al.: Clean, intermittent catheterization of infants with neurogenic bladder. Pediatrics 1989, 84:78–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Joseph DB: The effect of medium-fill and slow-fill saline cystometry on detrusor pressure in infants and children with myelodysplasia. J Urol 1992, 147:444–446.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Joseph DB: The use of iothalamate meglumine 17.2% as an effective testing medium in lower urinary tract urodynamic assessment of children. J Urol 1993, 149:92–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hsieh MH, Perry V, Gupta N, et al.: The effects of detethering on the urodynamics profile in children with a tethered cord. Neurosurg 2006, 105:391–395.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tarcan T, Onol FF, Ilker Y, et al.: Does surgical release of secondary spinal cord tethering improve the prognosis of neurogenic bladder in children with myelomeningocele? J Urol 2006, 176:1601–1606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Joseph DB: Untethering of the spinal cord in children with myelomeningocele: effect on bladder function. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007, 49:472–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abrahamsson K, Olsson I, Sillen U: Urodynamic finding in children with myelomeningocele after untethering of the spinal cord. J Urol 2007, 177:331–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lapides J, Diokno AC, Silber SJ, et al.: Clean intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol 1972, 107:458–461.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Amark P, Eksborg S, Juneskans O, et al.: Pharmacokinetics and effects of intravesical oxybutynin on the paediatric neurogenic bladder. Br J Urol 1998, 82:859–864.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hutcheson JC, Cooper CS, Canning DA, et al.: The use of vesicostomy as permanent urinary diversion in the child with myelomeningocele. J Urol 2001. 166:2351–2353.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Adams MC, Joseph DB: Urinary Tract Reconstruction in Children. Edited by Walsh PC, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2002:2508–2563.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Almodhen F, Capolicchio JP, Jednak R, et al.: Postpubertal urodynamic and upper urinary tract changes in children with conservatively treated myelomeningocele. J Urol 2007, 178:1478–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mingin GC, Baskin LS: Surgical management of the neurogenic bladder and bowel. Int Braz J Urol 2003, 29:53–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hinman F: Selection of intestinal segments for bladder substitution: physical and physiological characteristics. J Urol 1988, 139:519–523.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roth S, Semjonow A, Waldner M, et al.: Risk of bowel dysfunction with diarrhea after continent urinary diversion with ileal and ileocecal segments. J Urol 1995, 154:1696–1699.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hensie TW, Gilbert SM: A review of metabolic consequences and long-term complications of enterocystoplasty in children. Curr Urol Rep 2007, 8:157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Metcalfe PD, Cain MP, Kaefer M, et al.: What is the need for additional bladder surgery after bladder augmentation in childhood? J Urol 2006, 176:1801–1805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hensle TW, Bingham J, Lam J, et al.: Preventing reservoir calculi after augmentation cystoplasty and continent urinary diversion: the influence of an irrigation protocol. Br J Urol 2004, 93:585–587.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Slaton JW, Kropp KA: Conservative management of suspected bladder rupture after augmentation cystoplasty. J Urol 1994, 152:713–715.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Crane JM, Scherz HC, Billman GF, et al.: Ischemic necrosis: hypothesis to explain the pathogenesis of spontaneously ruptured enterocystoplasty. J Urol 1991, 146:141–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Metcalfe PD, Casale AJ, Kaefer MA, et al.: Spontaneous bladder perforations: a report of 500 augmentations in children and analysis of risk. J Urol 2006, 175:1466–1471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Barrington JW, Fulford S, Griffith SD, et al.: Tumors in bladder remnant after augmentation enterocystoplasty. J Urol 1997, 157:482–485.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Soergel TM, Cain MP, Misseri R, et al.: Transitional cell cancer following augmentation cystoplasty for neuropathic bladder. J Urol 2004, 172:1649–1651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. North AC, Lakshmanan Y: Malignancy associated with the use of intestinal segments in the urinary tract. Urol Oncol 2007, 25:165–167.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Joseph DB: Bladder rehabilitation in children with spina bifida: state-of-the-’art’. J Urol 2005, 173:1850–1851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Xiao C, Du M, Li B, et al.: An artificial somatic-autonomic reflex pathway procedure for bladder control in children with spina bifida. J Urol 2005, 173:2112–2116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewis JM, Cheng EY: Non-traditional management of the neurogenic bladder: tissue engineering and neuromodulation. Sci World J 2007, 7:1230–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bugg E, Joseph DB: Bladder neck cinch for pediatric neurogenic outlet deficiency. J Urol 2003, 170:1503–1504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kryger JV, Gonzalez R, Barthold JS: Surgical management of urinary incontinence in children with neurogenic sphincteric incompetence. J Urol 2000, 163:256–263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Herndon CDA, Rink RC, Shaw MB, et al.: The Indiana experience with artificial urinary sphincters in children and young adults. J Urol 2003, 169:650–654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kryger JV, Leverson G, Gonzalez R: Long-term results of artificial sphincters in children are independent of age at implantation. J Urol 2001, 165:2377–2379.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kropp KA, Angwafo FF: Urethral lengthening and reimplantation for neurogenic incontinence in children. J Urol 1986, 135:533–536.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Snodgrass WT: A simplified Kropp procedure for incontinence. J Urol 1997, 158:1049–1052.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pippi Salle JL, McLorie GL, Bagli DJ, et al.: Urethral lengthening with anterior bladder wall flap (Pippi Salle procedure): modifications and extended indications of the technique. J Urol 1997, 158:585–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bauer SB, Reda EF, Colodny AH, et al.: Detrusor instability: a delayed complication in association with the artificial sphincter. J Urol 1986, 135:1212–1215.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Liard A, Seguier-Lipszyc E, Mathiot A, et al.: The Mitrofanoff procedure: 20 years later. J Urol 2001, 165:2394.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cendron M, Gearhart JP: The Mitrofanoff principle: technique and application in continent urinary diversion. Urol Clin North Am 1991, 18:615–621.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Yerkes EB, Cain MP, King S, et al.: The Malone antegrade continence enema procedure: quality of life and family perspective. J Urol 2003, 169:320–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Monti PR, Lara RC, Dutra MA, et al.: New techniques for construction of efferent conduits based on the Mitrofanoff principle. Urology 1997, 49:112–115.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Perez M, Lemelle JL, Barthelme H, et al.: Bowel management with antegrade colonic enema using a Malone or a Monti conduit—clinical results. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2001, 11:315–318.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lorenzo AJ, Chait PG, Wallis MC, et al.: Minimally invasive approach for treatment of urinary and fecal incontinence in selected patients with spina bifida. J Urol 2007, 70:568–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hsu TH, Shortliffe LD: Laparoscopic mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy. Urology 2004, 64:802–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Palmer LS, Franco I, Kogan SJ, et al.: Urolithiasis in children following augmentation cystoplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:726–729.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Pediatric Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Children’s Hospital, 1600 7th Avenue, South, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA

    David B. Joseph

Authors
  1. David B. Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Joseph.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joseph, D.B. Current approaches to the urologic care of children with spina bifida. Curr Urol Rep 9, 151–157 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-008-0027-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-008-0027-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation